On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 05:43:47PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like some more explanation about the inner working of "that new
> >> user" as per comment above.
> >>
> >> It would be enough t
Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
>> I'd like some more explanation about the inner working of "that new
>> user" as per comment above.
>>
>> It would be enough to drop mmu_notifier_invalidate_range from above
>> without adding it to the
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 01:42:15AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Jerome,
>
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:30:11PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > +Case A is obvious you do not want to take the risk for the device to write
> > to
> > +a page that might now be use by some completely differen
Hello Jerome,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:30:11PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> +Case A is obvious you do not want to take the risk for the device to write to
> +a page that might now be use by some completely different task.
used
> +is true ven if the thread doing the page table update is preemp
From: Jérôme Glisse
(Note that this is 4.15 material or 4.14 if people are extra confident. I
am posting now to get people to test. To that effect maybe it would be a
good idea to have that patch sit in linux-next for a while for testing.
Other motivation is that the problem is fresh in every
