[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGzOO4nZPbZzmaDjjBGZiV2HjgdbT45q9Rd5wTO14VH2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:36:52 +0200
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end()
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some
> > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no
> > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like
> > to get at least the others considered.
>
> Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking
> mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so:
>
> - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it
> as-is. Your decision if you want to respin.
I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell.
> - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path
> Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc.
Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit
more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so
they're not holding up the others.
> - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too,
> this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the
> __mmu_notifier function
To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also
wrapped around invalidate_range_end? From my understanding of pte
zapping that makes sense, but I'm definitely not well-versed enough
for that.
> Can you respin?
Will do.
> I will propose preloading the map in another patch
> - #5 is already applied in -rc
Yup, I'll drop that one.
Thanks, Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
Powered by blists - more mailing lists