linux-kernel - Re: Interacting with coherent memory on external devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <553E6405.1060007@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:29:57 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@...il.com>
CC:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	jglisse@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de, aarcange@...hat.com,
	airlied@...hat.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Cameron Buschardt <cabuschardt@...dia.com>,
	Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
	Geoffrey Gerfin <ggerfin@...dia.com>,
	John McKenna <jmckenna@...dia.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Interacting with coherent memory on external devices

On 04/27/2015 12:17 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 
>>> Improvements to the general code would be preferred instead of
>>> having specialized solutions for a particular hardware alone.  If the
>>> general code can then handle the special coprocessor situation then we
>>> avoid a lot of code development.
>>
>> I think Paul only big change would be the memory ZONE changes. Having a
>> way to add the device memory as struct page while blocking the kernel
>> allocation from using this memory. Beside that i think the autonuma changes
>> he would need would really be specific to his usecase but would still
>> reuse all of the low level logic.
> 
> Well lets avoid that. 

Why would we want to avoid the sane approach that makes this thing
work with the fewest required changes to core code?

Just because your workload is different from the workload they are
trying to enable?

-- 
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/