[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c288bda8-66c4-4971-9322-e1450855f93b@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:02:25 +1100
From: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jordan Niethe <jniethe@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
matthew.brost@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, david@...hat.com, ziy@...dia.com,
apopple@...dia.com, lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, lyude@...hat.com,
dakr@...nel.org, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch, rcampbell@...dia.com,
mpenttil@...hat.com, willy@...radead.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, Felix.Kuehling@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Remove device private pages from physical
address space
On 1/8/26 06:54, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 12:06:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>> 2) Attempting to add the device private pages to the linear map at
>>> addresses beyond the actual physical memory causes issues on
>>> architectures like aarch64 - meaning the feature does not work there [0].
>>
>> Can you better help us understand the seriousness of these problems?
>> How much are our users really hurting from this?
>
> We think it is pretty serious, in the future HW support sense, as it
> means real systems being built do not work :)
>
> Also Willy and others were cheering this work on at LPC. I think the
> possible followup to move DEVICE_PRIVATE from struct page and reduce
> the memory allocation would be well celebrated.
>
> The Intel Xe and AMD GPU teams are the two drivers most important to
> be testing this as they consume the feature.
>
And the ultravisor usage in powerpc as well (book3s_hv_uvmem).
Balbir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists