Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 05:19:55 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system
 file object
Message-ID: <20190911081955.GA9070@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190812130039.GD24457@ziepe.ca>
 <20190812172826.GA19746@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190812175615.GI24457@ziepe.ca>
 <20190812211537.GE20634@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190813114842.GB29508@ziepe.ca>
 <20190813174142.GB11882@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190813180022.GF29508@ziepe.ca>
 <20190813203858.GA12695@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190814122308.GB13770@ziepe.ca>
 <20190904222549.GC31319@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190904222549.GC31319@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:25:50PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:23:08AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:38:59PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:00:22PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:41:42AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And I was pretty sure uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() would take care of (or ensure
> > > > > that some other thread is) destroying all the MR's we have associated with this
> > > > > FD.
> > > > 
> > > > fd's can't be revoked, so destroy_ufile_hw() can't touch them. It
> > > > deletes any underlying HW resources, but the FD persists.
> > > 
> > > I misspoke.  I should have said associated with this "context".  And of course
> > > uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() does not touch the FD.  What I mean is that the
> > > struct file which had file_pins hanging off of it would be getting its file
> > > pins destroyed by uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw().  Therefore we don't need the FD
> > > after uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() is done.
> > > 
> > > But since it does not block it may be that the struct file is gone before the
> > > MR is actually destroyed.  Which means I think the GUP code would blow up in
> > > that case...  :-(
> > 
> > Oh, yes, that is true, you also can't rely on the struct file living
> > longer than the HW objects either, that isn't how the lifetime model
> > works.
> 
> Reviewing all these old threads...  And this made me think.  While the HW
> objects may out live the struct file.
> 
> They _are_ going away in a finite amount of time right?  It is not like they
> could be held forever right?

Yes, at least until they become shared between FDs

Jason