[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4i=Vq9VQphMhyuuBpS5j9MeuaXF9URyR=a4kN+ios5Gyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:21:12 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>, zwisler@...nel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"Koenig, Christian" <christian.koenig@....com>,
rcampbell@...dia.com, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] mm/mmu_notifier: contextual information for event
triggering invalidation v2
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 9:14 AM <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>
> CPU page table update can happens for many reasons, not only as a result
> of a syscall (munmap(), mprotect(), mremap(), madvise(), ...) but also
> as a result of kernel activities (memory compression, reclaim, migration,
> ...).
>
> Users of mmu notifier API track changes to the CPU page table and take
> specific action for them. While current API only provide range of virtual
> address affected by the change, not why the changes is happening.
>
> This patchset adds event information so that users of mmu notifier can
> differentiate among broad category:
> - UNMAP: munmap() or mremap()
> - CLEAR: page table is cleared (migration, compaction, reclaim, ...)
> - PROTECTION_VMA: change in access protections for the range
> - PROTECTION_PAGE: change in access protections for page in the range
> - SOFT_DIRTY: soft dirtyness tracking
>
> Being able to identify munmap() and mremap() from other reasons why the
> page table is cleared is important to allow user of mmu notifier to
> update their own internal tracking structure accordingly (on munmap or
> mremap it is not longer needed to track range of virtual address as it
> becomes invalid).
Who consumes these new enum values? The consumer of the new
infrastructure should be included in the patchset that adds the new
functionality. So a NAK from me until the consumer is clarified /
included.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists