On Tuesday, 2 March 2021 11:41:52 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > However try_to_protect() scans the PTEs again under the PTL so checking
the
> > mapping of interest actually gets replaced during the rmap walk seems like
a
> > reasonable solution. Thanks for the comments.
>
> It does seem
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 07:57:58PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> The intent was a driver could use HMM or some other mechanism to keep PTEs
> synchronised if required. However I just looked at patch 8 in the series
> again
> and it appears I got this wrong when converting from the old
On Tuesday, 2 March 2021 11:05:59 AM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:18:29PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> > +/**
> > + * make_device_exclusive_range() - Mark a range for exclusive use by a
device
> > + * @mm: mm_struct of assoicated target process
> > + * @start:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:18:29PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> +/**
> + * make_device_exclusive_range() - Mark a range for exclusive use by a device
> + * @mm: mm_struct of assoicated target process
> + * @start: start of the region to mark for exclusive device access
> + * @end: end address
> From: Alistair Popple
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 11:18 PM
> To: linux...@kvack.org; nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org;
> bske...@redhat.com; a...@linux-foundation.org
> Cc: linux-...@vger.kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; dri-
> de...@lists.freedesktop.org; John Hubbard ; Ralph
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 06:18:29PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> Some devices require exclusive write access to shared virtual
> memory (SVM) ranges to perform atomic operations on that memory. This
> requires CPU page tables to be updated to deny access whilst atomic
> operations are occurring.
Some devices require exclusive write access to shared virtual
memory (SVM) ranges to perform atomic operations on that memory. This
requires CPU page tables to be updated to deny access whilst atomic
operations are occurring.
In order to do this introduce a new swap entry
type
