[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YiYoUfYuTDsld6L0@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2022 17:44:17 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@...fian.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, jaharkes@...cmu.edu,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
codalist@...emann.coda.cs.cmu.edu, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] mm: Add f_ops->populate()
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:29:22AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/7/22 03:27, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > But e.g. in __mm_populate() anything with (VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP) gets
> > filtered out and never reach that function.
> >
> > I don't know unorthodox that'd be but could we perhaps have a VM
> > flag for SGX?
>
> SGX only works on a subset of the chips from one vendor on one
> architecture. That doesn't seem worth burning a VM flag.
What do you think of Matthew's idea of using ra_state for prediction?
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists