From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Simona Vetter" <simona.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Dave Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] mm/mmu_notifier: Allow multiple struct mmu_interval_notifier passes
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 13:36:17 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250818163617.GI599331@ziepe.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aKNT8GUu0r3i4Ikq@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com>
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 09:25:20AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> I think this choice makes sense: it allows embedding the wait state from
> the initial notifier call into the pass structure. Patch [6] shows this
> by attaching the issued TLB invalidation fences to the pass. Since a
> single notifier may be invoked multiple times with different ranges but
> the same seqno,
That should be explained, but also seems to be a bit of a different
issue..
If the design is really to only have two passes and this linked list
is about retaining state then there should not be so much freedom to
have more passes.
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-18 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-09 13:51 [RFC PATCH 0/6] Multi-pass MMU interval notifiers Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] mm/mmu_notifier: Allow multiple struct mmu_interval_notifier passes Thomas Hellström
2025-08-18 16:07 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-08-18 16:25 ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-18 16:36 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2025-08-18 16:42 ` Thomas Hellström
2025-08-18 16:45 ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-18 16:44 ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-18 16:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-08-19 9:55 ` Alistair Popple
2025-08-19 11:33 ` Thomas Hellström
2025-08-19 15:35 ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-21 9:34 ` Thomas Hellström
2025-08-19 10:03 ` Alistair Popple
2025-08-19 11:35 ` Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] drm/gpusvm: Update GPU SVM / Xe to twopass MMU notifier Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] drm/gpusvm: Add drm_gpusvm_in_notifier_* helpers Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] drm/xe: Skip waiting on unarmed fences in xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence_wait Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] drm/xe: Add fences argument to xe_vm_range_tilemask_tlb_invalidation Thomas Hellström
2025-08-09 13:51 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] drm/xe: Implement two pass MMU notifiers for SVM Thomas Hellström
2025-08-11 20:46 ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-12 9:06 ` Thomas Hellström
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=20250818163617.GI599331@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=simona.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).