Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:41:47 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server
Message-ID: <20091104134146.GE8920@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1257267892.git.mst@redhat.com> <20091103172422.GD5591@redhat.com> <878wema6o0.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20091104121009.GF8398@redhat.com> <20091104125957.GL31511@one.firstfloor.org> <20091104130828.GC8920@redhat.com> <20091104131533.GM31511@one.firstfloor.org> <20091104131735.GD8920@redhat.com> <20091104133728.GN31511@one.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20091104133728.GN31511@one.firstfloor.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1722
Lines: 47

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:37:28PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:17:36PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 02:15:33PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:08:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:59:57PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > > Fine?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I cannot say -- are there paths that could drop the device beforehand?
> > > > 
> > > > Do you mean drop the mm reference?
> > > 
> > > No the reference to the device, which owns the mm for you.
> > 
> > The device is created when file is open and destroyed
> > when file is closed. So I think the fs code handles the
> > reference counting for me: it won't call file cleanup
> > callback while some userspace process has the file open.
> > Right?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But the semantics when someone inherits such a fd through exec
> or through file descriptor passing would be surely "interesting"
> You would still do IO on the old VM.
> 
> I guess it would be a good way to confuse memory accounting schemes 
> or administrators @)
> It would be all saner if this was all a single atomic step.
> 
> -Andi

I have this atomic actually. A child process will first thing
do SET_OWNER: this is required before any other operation.

SET_OWNER atomically (under mutex) does two things:
- check that there is no other owner
- get mm and set current process as owner

I hope this addresses your concern?

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/