[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKTCnzmA3B4r956GXv8UKxmCTqxdt=uoXr4KBbvzzfc=ciz03A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:27:10 +1100
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
David Nellans <dnellans@...dia.com>,
Aneesh Kumar KV <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Reza Arbab <arbab@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [HMM v17 00/14] HMM (Heterogeneous Memory Management) v17
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:19:15 +1100 Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:52:07PM -0500, J__r__me Glisse wrote:
>> > Cliff note: HMM offers 2 things (each standing on its own). First
>> > it allows to use device memory transparently inside any process
>> > without any modifications to process program code. Second it allows
>> > to mirror process address space on a device.
>> >
>> > Change since v16:
>> > - move HMM unaddressable device memory to its own radix tree and
>> > thus find_dev_pagemap() will no longer return HMM dev_pagemap
>> > - rename HMM migration helper (drop the prefix) and make them
>> > completely independent of HMM
>> >
>> > Migration can now be use to implement thing like multi-threaded
>> > copy or make use of specific memory allocator for destination
>> > memory.
>> >
>> > Work is under way to use this feature inside nouveau (the upstream
>> > open source driver for NVidia GPU) either 411 or 4.12 timeframe.
>> > But this patchset have been otherwise tested with the close source
>> > driver for NVidia GPU and thus we are confident it works and allow
>> > to use the hardware for seamless interaction between CPU and GPU
>> > in common address space of a process.
>> >
>> > I also discussed the features with other company and i am confident
>> > it can be use on other, yet, unrelease hardware.
>> >
>> > Please condiser applying for 4.11
>> >
>>
>> Andrew, do we expect to get this in 4.11/4.12? Just curious.
>>
>
> I'll be taking a serious look after -rc1.
>
> The lack of reviewed-by, acked-by and tested-by is a concern. It's
> rather odd for a patchset in the 17th revision! What's up with that?
>
> Have you reviewed or tested the patches?
I reviewed v14/15 of the patches. Aneesh reviewed some versions as
well. I know a few people who tested a small subset of the patches,
I'll get them to report back as well. I think John Hubbard has been
testing iterations as well. CC'ing other interested people as well
Balbir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists