[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190724115338.GA30264@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:53:42 +0000
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/hmm: make full use of walk_page_range()
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:51:46AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:30:16PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> > hmm_range_snapshot() and hmm_range_fault() both call find_vma() and
> > walk_page_range() in a loop. This is unnecessary duplication since
> > walk_page_range() calls find_vma() in a loop already.
> > Simplify hmm_range_snapshot() and hmm_range_fault() by defining a
> > walk_test() callback function to filter unhandled vmas.
>
> I like the approach a lot!
>
> But we really need to sort out the duplication between hmm_range_fault
> and hmm_range_snapshot first, as they are basically the same code. I
> have patches here:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/a34ccd30ee8a8a3111d9e91711c12901ed7dea74
>
> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/81f442ebac7170815af7770a1efa9c4ab662137e
Yeah, that is a straightforward improvement, maybe Ralph should grab
these two as part of his series?
> That being said we don't really have any users for the snapshot mode
> or non-blocking faults, and I don't see any in the immediate pipeline
> either.
If this code was production ready I'd use it in ODP right away.
When we first create a ODP MR we'd want to snapshot to pre-load the
NIC tables with something other than page fault, but not fault
anything.
This would be a big performance improvement for ODP.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists