On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:33:02PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:06:08PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >
> > > enum mmu_range_notifier_event {
> > > MMU_NOTIFY_RELEASE,
> > > };
> > >
> > > ...assuming that we stay with "mmu_range_notifier" as a core name for
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > Extra credit: IMHO, this clearly deserves to all be in a new
> > mmu_range_notifier.h
> > header file, but I know that's extra work. Maybe later as a follow-up patch,
> > if anyone has the time.
>
> The range notifier
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:11:06PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Extra credit: IMHO, this clearly deserves to all be in a new
> > > >
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:23:21PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> Nice design, I love the seq foundation! So far, I'm not able to spot anything
> actually wrong with the implementation, sorry about that.
Alas :( I feel there must be a bug in here still, but onwards!
One of the main sad points
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:32:25AM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:11:06PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:11:06PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Extra credit: IMHO, this clearly deserves to all be in a new
> > > mmu_range_notifier.h
> > > header file, but I know that's extra work. Maybe later as
On 11/7/19 12:06 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
Also, it is best moved down to be next to the new MNR structs, so that all the
MNR stuff is in one group.
I agree with Jerome, this enum is part of the 'struct
mmu_notifier_range' (ie the description of the invalidation) and it
doesn't really
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:23:21PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/28/19 1:10 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[...]
> > /**
> > * enum mmu_notifier_event - reason for the mmu notifier callback
> > @@ -32,6 +34,9 @@ struct mmu_notifier_range;
> > * access flags). User should soft dirty the
On 10/28/19 1:10 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
> include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 98 +++
> mm/Kconfig | 1 +
> mm/mmu_notifier.c| 533 +--
> 3 files changed, 607 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:04:45PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> >* because mm->mm_users > 0 during mmu_notifier_register and exit_mmap
> > @@ -52,17 +286,24 @@ struct mmu_notifier_mm {
> >* can't go away from under us as exit_mmap holds an mm_count pin
> >* itself.
> >*/
> >
I haven't had enough time to fully understand the deferred logic in this
change. I spotted one problem, see comments inline.
On 2019-10-28 4:10 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> Of the 13 users of mmu_notifiers, 8 of them use only
> invalidate_range_start/end() and
From: Jason Gunthorpe
Of the 13 users of mmu_notifiers, 8 of them use only
invalidate_range_start/end() and immediately intersect the
mmu_notifier_range with some kind of internal list of VAs. 4 use an
interval tree (i915_gem, radeon_mn, umem_odp, hfi1). 4 use a linked list
of some kind
12 matches
Mail list logo
