Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:33:56 +0200 Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence > > -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git) > > and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK? > > Ok. I've tested them and they work fine. I'm sorry that you had to wait for > me for a few days. You can now add: > > Acked-and-tested-by: Marek Szyprowski Thanks. > I've also rebased my pending patches onto this set (I will send them soon). > > The question is now if you want to keep the discussed patches in your > -mm tree, > or should I take them to my -next branch. If you like to keep them, I assume > you will also take the patches which depends on the discussed changes. Yup, that works. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
Hello, On 2014-06-18 22:51, Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote: v2: - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, let me know, I will also prepare it. Hello, I'm glad to hear that. :) But, there is one concern. As you already know, I am preparing further patches (Aggressively allocate the pages on CMA reserved memory). It may be highly related to MM branch and also slightly depends on this CMA changes. In this case, what is the best strategy to merge this patchset? IMHO, Anrew's tree is more appropriate branch. If there is no issue in this case, I am willing to develope further patches based on your tree. That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git) and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK? Ok. I've tested them and they work fine. I'm sorry that you had to wait for me for a few days. You can now add: Acked-and-tested-by: Marek Szyprowski I've also rebased my pending patches onto this set (I will send them soon). The question is now if you want to keep the discussed patches in your -mm tree, or should I take them to my -next branch. If you like to keep them, I assume you will also take the patches which depends on the discussed changes. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 01:51:44PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > > >v2: > > > > - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, > > > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. > > > > > > > >This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. > > > > > > Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if > > > everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch > > > is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, > > > let me know, I will also prepare it. > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm glad to hear that. :) > > But, there is one concern. As you already know, I am preparing further > > patches (Aggressively allocate the pages on CMA reserved memory). It > > may be highly related to MM branch and also slightly depends on this CMA > > changes. In this case, what is the best strategy to merge this > > patchset? IMHO, Anrew's tree is more appropriate branch. If there is > > no issue in this case, I am willing to develope further patches based > > on your tree. > > That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence > -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git) > and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK? Hello, Marek. Could you share your decision about this patchset? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:25:07 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > >v2: > > > - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, > > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. > > > > > >This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. > > > > Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if > > everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch > > is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, > > let me know, I will also prepare it. > > Hello, > > I'm glad to hear that. :) > But, there is one concern. As you already know, I am preparing further > patches (Aggressively allocate the pages on CMA reserved memory). It > may be highly related to MM branch and also slightly depends on this CMA > changes. In this case, what is the best strategy to merge this > patchset? IMHO, Anrew's tree is more appropriate branch. If there is > no issue in this case, I am willing to develope further patches based > on your tree. That's probably easier. Marek, I'll merge these into -mm (and hence -next and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mhocko/mm.git) and shall hold them pending you review/ack/test/etc, OK? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:11:35AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Hello, > > On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > >Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA > >subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code > >to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar. > >>From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side > >wants to maintain bitmap not for 1 page, but for more size. Eventually it > >use bitmap where one bit represents 64 pages. > > > >When I implement CMA related patches, I should change those two places > >to apply my change and it seem to be painful to me. I want to change > >this situation and reduce future code management overhead through > >this patch. > > > >This change could also help developer who want to use CMA in their > >new feature development, since they can use CMA easily without > >copying & pasting this reserved area management code. > > > >v3: > > - Simplify old patch 1(log format fix) and move it to the end of patchset. > > - Patch 2: Pass aligned base and size to dma_contiguous_early_fixup() > > - Patch 5: Add some accessor functions to pass aligned base and size to > > dma_contiguous_early_fixup() function > > - Patch 5: Move MAX_CMA_AREAS definition to cma.h > > - Patch 6: Add CMA region zeroing to PPC KVM's CMA alloc function > > - Patch 8: put 'base' ahead of 'size' in cma_declare_contiguous() > > - Remaining minor fixes are noted in commit description of each one > > > >v2: > > - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, > > that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. > > > >This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. > > Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if > everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch > is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, > let me know, I will also prepare it. Hello, I'm glad to hear that. :) But, there is one concern. As you already know, I am preparing further patches (Aggressively allocate the pages on CMA reserved memory). It may be highly related to MM branch and also slightly depends on this CMA changes. In this case, what is the best strategy to merge this patchset? IMHO, Anrew's tree is more appropriate branch. If there is no issue in this case, I am willing to develope further patches based on your tree. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH v3 -next 0/9] CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management code
Hello, On 2014-06-16 07:40, Joonsoo Kim wrote: Currently, there are two users on CMA functionality, one is the DMA subsystem and the other is the KVM on powerpc. They have their own code to manage CMA reserved area even if they looks really similar. >From my guess, it is caused by some needs on bitmap management. Kvm side wants to maintain bitmap not for 1 page, but for more size. Eventually it use bitmap where one bit represents 64 pages. When I implement CMA related patches, I should change those two places to apply my change and it seem to be painful to me. I want to change this situation and reduce future code management overhead through this patch. This change could also help developer who want to use CMA in their new feature development, since they can use CMA easily without copying & pasting this reserved area management code. v3: - Simplify old patch 1(log format fix) and move it to the end of patchset. - Patch 2: Pass aligned base and size to dma_contiguous_early_fixup() - Patch 5: Add some accessor functions to pass aligned base and size to dma_contiguous_early_fixup() function - Patch 5: Move MAX_CMA_AREAS definition to cma.h - Patch 6: Add CMA region zeroing to PPC KVM's CMA alloc function - Patch 8: put 'base' ahead of 'size' in cma_declare_contiguous() - Remaining minor fixes are noted in commit description of each one v2: - Although this patchset looks very different with v1, the end result, that is, mm/cma.c is same with v1's one. So I carry Ack to patch 6-7. This patchset is based on linux-next 20140610. Thanks for taking care of this. I will test it with my setup and if everything goes well, I will take it to my -next tree. If any branch is required for anyone to continue his works on top of those patches, let me know, I will also prepare it. Patch 1-4 prepare some features to cover PPC KVM's requirements. Patch 5-6 generalize CMA reserved area management code and change users to use it. Patch 7-9 clean-up minor things. Joonsoo Kim (9): DMA, CMA: fix possible memory leak DMA, CMA: separate core CMA management codes from DMA APIs DMA, CMA: support alignment constraint on CMA region DMA, CMA: support arbitrary bitmap granularity CMA: generalize CMA reserved area management functionality PPC, KVM, CMA: use general CMA reserved area management framework mm, CMA: clean-up CMA allocation error path mm, CMA: change cma_declare_contiguous() to obey coding convention mm, CMA: clean-up log message arch/arm/mm/dma-mapping.c|1 + arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c |4 +- arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_builtin.c | 19 +- arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_cma.c | 240 arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_cma.h | 27 --- drivers/base/Kconfig | 10 - drivers/base/dma-contiguous.c| 210 ++--- include/linux/cma.h | 21 +++ include/linux/dma-contiguous.h | 11 +- mm/Kconfig | 11 ++ mm/Makefile |1 + mm/cma.c | 335 ++ 12 files changed, 397 insertions(+), 493 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_cma.c delete mode 100644 arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_cma.h create mode 100644 include/linux/cma.h create mode 100644 mm/cma.c Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
