From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
bskeggs@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
jhubbard@nvidia.com, rcampbell@nvidia.com, jglisse@redhat.com,
daniel@ffwll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 14:01:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 866a0fa104c4..5d28ff6d4d80 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct hmm_range {
> > */
> > int hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range);
> >
> > +int hmm_exclusive_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end, struct page **pages);
> > +vm_fault_t hmm_remove_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf);
>
> Can we avoid the hmm naming for new code (we should probably also kill
> it off for the existing code)?
Yes please, I'd prefer it if hmm.c was just the special page walker
and not a grab bag of unrelated things
Is there is a more natural place to put this in the mm for this idea?
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org,
bskeggs@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
jhubbard@nvidia.com, rcampbell@nvidia.com, jglisse@redhat.com,
daniel@ffwll.ch
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:01:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 866a0fa104c4..5d28ff6d4d80 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct hmm_range {
> > */
> > int hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range);
> >
> > +int hmm_exclusive_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end, struct page **pages);
> > +vm_fault_t hmm_remove_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf);
>
> Can we avoid the hmm naming for new code (we should probably also kill
> it off for the existing code)?
Yes please, I'd prefer it if hmm.c was just the special page walker
and not a grab bag of unrelated things
Is there is a more natural place to put this in the mm for this idea?
Jason
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: rcampbell@nvidia.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, bskeggs@redhat.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:01:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 866a0fa104c4..5d28ff6d4d80 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct hmm_range {
> > */
> > int hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range);
> >
> > +int hmm_exclusive_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end, struct page **pages);
> > +vm_fault_t hmm_remove_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf);
>
> Can we avoid the hmm naming for new code (we should probably also kill
> it off for the existing code)?
Yes please, I'd prefer it if hmm.c was just the special page walker
and not a grab bag of unrelated things
Is there is a more natural place to put this in the mm for this idea?
Jason
_______________________________________________
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: rcampbell@nvidia.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, jglisse@redhat.com, bskeggs@redhat.com,
jhubbard@nvidia.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 10:01:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210219094741.GA641389@infradead.org>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 09:47:41AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > index 866a0fa104c4..5d28ff6d4d80 100644
> > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ struct hmm_range {
> > */
> > int hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range);
> >
> > +int hmm_exclusive_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end, struct page **pages);
> > +vm_fault_t hmm_remove_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf);
>
> Can we avoid the hmm naming for new code (we should probably also kill
> it off for the existing code)?
Yes please, I'd prefer it if hmm.c was just the special page walker
and not a grab bag of unrelated things
Is there is a more natural place to put this in the mm for this idea?
Jason
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-19 14:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-19 2:07 [PATCH v2 0/4] Add support for SVM atomics in Nouveau Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] hmm: Device exclusive memory access Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 4:04 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 4:04 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 4:04 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 4:04 ` [Nouveau] " kernel test robot
2021-02-19 4:04 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 4:29 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 4:29 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 4:29 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 4:29 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 4:29 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 5:09 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 5:09 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 5:09 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 5:09 ` [Nouveau] " kernel test robot
2021-02-19 5:09 ` kernel test robot
2021-02-19 9:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-02-19 9:47 ` [Nouveau] " Christoph Hellwig
2021-02-19 9:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-02-19 14:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-02-19 14:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-19 14:01 ` [Nouveau] " Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-19 14:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-02-22 10:46 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-22 10:46 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-22 10:46 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-22 10:46 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] hmm: Selftests for exclusive device memory Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] nouveau/svm: Refactor nouveau_range_fault Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] nouveau/svm: Implement atomic SVM access Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` [Nouveau] " Alistair Popple
2021-02-19 2:07 ` Alistair Popple
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210219140105.GE2643399@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.