From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:55378 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753153AbcLMSUy (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:20:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1481653252.2473.51.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Un-addressable device memory and block/fs implications From: James Bottomley To: Jerome Glisse , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 10:20:52 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20161213181511.GB2305@redhat.com> References: <20161213181511.GB2305@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 13:15 -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > I would like to discuss un-addressable device memory in the context > of filesystem and block device. Specificaly how to handle write-back, > read, ... when a filesystem page is migrated to device memory that > CPU can not access. > > I intend to post a patchset leveraging the same idea as the existing > block bounce helper (block/bounce.c) to handle this. I believe this > is worth discussing during summit see how people feels about such > plan and if they have better ideas. Isn't this pretty much what the transcendent memory interfaces we currently have are for? It's current use cases seem to be compressed swap and distributed memory, but there doesn't seem to be any reason in principle why you can't use the interface as well. James > I also like to join discussions on: > - Peer-to-Peer DMAs between PCIe devices > - CDM coherent device memory > - PMEM > - overall mm discussions > > Cheers, > Jérôme > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux > -fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >