On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:42:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:59:26PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> > > This test for range_blockable should be before mutex_lock, I can move
> > > it up
> > >
> > yes, thanks.
>
> Okay, I wrote it like this:
>
> if
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:44:51PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-10-29 3:25 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:22:37PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> >> Hi Jason,
> >>
> >> I did quick test after merging amd-staging-drm-next with the
> >> mmu_notifier branch,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:59:26PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> > This test for range_blockable should be before mutex_lock, I can move
> > it up
> >
> yes, thanks.
Okay, I wrote it like this:
if (mmu_notifier_range_blockable(range))
mutex_lock(>notifier_lock);
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 07:45:22PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> > This must be done inside the notifier_lock, after checking
> > mmu_range_read_retry(), all handling of the struct page must be
> > structured like that.
> >
> Below change will fix this, then driver will call mmu_range_read_retry
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:44:51PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> @@ -854,12 +853,20 @@ int amdgpu_ttm_tt_get_user_pages(struct amdgpu_bo *bo,
> struct page **pages)
> r = -EPERM;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
> + up_read(>mmap_sem);
> + timeout = jiffies +
Sorry, resend patch, the one in previous email missed couple of lines
duo to copy/paste.
On 2019-11-01 3:45 p.m., Yang, Philip wrote:
>
>
> On 2019-11-01 1:42 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:59:26PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
This test for range_blockable should
On 2019-11-01 1:42 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:59:26PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
>>> This test for range_blockable should be before mutex_lock, I can move
>>> it up
>>>
>> yes, thanks.
>
> Okay, I wrote it like this:
>
> if
On 2019-11-01 11:12 a.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 02:44:51PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019-10-29 3:25 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:22:37PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
Hi Jason,
I did quick test after merging
On 2019-10-29 3:25 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:22:37PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> I did quick test after merging amd-staging-drm-next with the
>> mmu_notifier branch, which includes this set changes. The test result
>> has different failures, app
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:22:37PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> I did quick test after merging amd-staging-drm-next with the
> mmu_notifier branch, which includes this set changes. The test result
> has different failures, app stuck intermittently, GUI no display etc. I
> am
Hi Jason,
I did quick test after merging amd-staging-drm-next with the
mmu_notifier branch, which includes this set changes. The test result
has different failures, app stuck intermittently, GUI no display etc. I
am understanding the changes and will try to figure out the cause.
Regards,
From: Jason Gunthorpe
Convert the collision-retry lock around hmm_range_fault to use the one now
provided by the mmu_range notifier.
Although this driver does not seem to use the collision retry lock that
hmm provides correctly, it can still be converted over to use the
mmu_range_notifier api
12 matches
Mail list logo
