Re: 答复: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: use vma_lookup() instead of find_vma()
Felix Kuehling
felix.kuehling at amd.com
Wed Oct 19 14:21:13 UTC 2022
Am 2022-10-17 um 20:47 schrieb tomorrow Wang (王德明):
> Hi,
> The function vma_lookup show below. Vma valid check is included in it. Or, What other questions do you have?
My question is, why did you leave the find_vma call in
svm_range_is_valid unchanged? I don't see a technical reason, but maybe
I'm missing something. If there is a reason, please explain. If there is
no reason, please fix that place as well for consistency.
Thanks,
Felix
>
> static inline
> struct vm_area_struct *vma_lookup(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
>
> if (vma && addr < vma->vm_start)
> vma = NULL;
>
> return vma;
> }
>
>
>> from: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling at amd.com>
>> time: 2022年10月18日 3:35
>> to: tomorrow Wang (王德明) <wangdeming at inspur.com>;
>> airlied at gmail.com; daniel at ffwll.ch; alexander.deucher at amd.com;
>> christian.koenig at amd.com; Xinhui.Pan at amd.com
>> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>> sub: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdkfd: use vma_lookup() instead of find_vma()
>>
>>
>> On 2022-10-06 22:48, Deming Wang wrote:
>>> Using vma_lookup() verifies the start address is contained in the
>>> found vma. This results in easier to read the code.
>> Thank you for the patches. This and your other patch look good to me.
>> However, you missed one use of find_vma in svm_range_is_valid. Is that an
>> oversight or is there a reason why we need to use find_vma there?
>>
>> If you're going to respin it, you may also squash the two patches into one.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Deming Wang <wangdeming at inspur.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c | 12 ++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
>>> index 64fdf63093a0..cabcc2ca3c23 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
>>> @@ -1586,8 +1586,8 @@ static int svm_range_validate_and_map(struct
>> mm_struct *mm,
>>> unsigned long npages;
>>> bool readonly;
>>>
>>> - vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
>>> - if (!vma || addr < vma->vm_start) {
>>> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr);
>>> + if (!vma) {
>>> r = -EFAULT;
>>> goto unreserve_out;
>>> }
>>> @@ -2542,8 +2542,8 @@ svm_range_get_range_boundaries(struct
>> kfd_process *p, int64_t addr,
>>> struct interval_tree_node *node;
>>> unsigned long start_limit, end_limit;
>>>
>>> - vma = find_vma(p->mm, addr << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> - if (!vma || (addr << PAGE_SHIFT) < vma->vm_start) {
>>> + vma = vma_lookup(p->mm, addr << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> + if (!vma) {
>>> pr_debug("VMA does not exist in address [0x%llx]\n", addr);
>>> return -EFAULT;
>>> }
>>> @@ -2871,8 +2871,8 @@ svm_range_restore_pages(struct amdgpu_device
>> *adev, unsigned int pasid,
>>> /* __do_munmap removed VMA, return success as we are handling stale
>>> * retry fault.
>>> */
>>> - vma = find_vma(mm, addr << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> - if (!vma || (addr << PAGE_SHIFT) < vma->vm_start) {
>>> + vma = vma_lookup(mm, addr << PAGE_SHIFT);
>>> + if (!vma) {
>>> pr_debug("address 0x%llx VMA is removed\n", addr);
>>> r = 0;
>>> goto out_unlock_range;
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list