Re: [PATCH] rdma: don't make pages writeable if not requiested

From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Thu Mar 21 2013 - 05:39:23 EST

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:13:38AM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> In that case, no, I don't see any reason for LOCAL_WRITE, since the
> >> only RDMA operations that will access this memory are remote reads.
> >
> > What is the meaning of LOCAL_WRITE then? There are no local
> > RDMA writes as far as I can see.
> Umm, it means you're giving the local adapter permission to write to
> that memory. So you can use it as a receive buffer or as the target
> for remote data from an RDMA read operation.

Well RDMA read has it's own flag, IB_ACCESS_REMOTE_READ.
I don't see why do you need to give adapter permission
to use memory as a receive buffer given that
you must pass the address in the post receive verb,
but maybe that's what the IB spec says so that's what
the applications assumed?

> > OK then what we need is a new flag saying "I really do not
> > intend to write into this memory please do not break
> > COW or do anything else just in case I do".
> Isn't that a shared read-only mapping?
> - R.

Nothing to do with how the page is mapped. We can and do write the page
before registration. BTW umem.c passes in force so it breaks COW
even for read-only mappings, right?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at