On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 10:05 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:44:54AM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > >> That's a good catch. Existing drivers shouldn't need a page_free
> > >> callback if they didn't have one before. That means we need to add a
> > >> NULL-pointer chec
On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:00 AM Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)
wrote:
>
>
> On 8/18/2021 2:28 PM, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> > On 8/17/21 5:35 PM, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >> Am 2021-08-17 um 8:01 p.m. schrieb Ralph Campbell:
> >>> On 8/12/21 11:31 PM, Alex Sierra wrote:
> From: Ralph Campbell
Note that you do not want GUP to succeed on device page, i do not see
where that is handled in the new code.
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 1:40 PM John Hubbard wrote:
>
> On 8/15/21 8:37 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> >> index 8ae31622deef..d48a
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 02:37:36PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.01.21 um 12:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > [SNIP]
> > > > I had a new idea, i wanted to think more about it but have not yet,
> > > > anyway here it is. Adding a new callback to dma fence which ask the
> > > > question can it
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:31:11PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:56 PM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:40:07PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:25:41AM -0500, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > > > Am 2
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 03:40:07PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:25:41AM -0500, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > Am 2021-01-07 um 4:23 a.m. schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:00:52PM -0500, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > >> This is the first version of our HMM ba
On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 10:00:52PM -0500, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> This is the first version of our HMM based shared virtual memory manager
> for KFD. There are still a number of known issues that we're working through
> (see below). This will likely lead to some pretty significant changes in
> MMU
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:46:17AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:31:47PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > Not doable as page refcount can change for things unrelated to GUP, with
> > John changes we can identify GUP and we could potentialy copy GUPed page
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:43:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:10 PM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:18:49PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:09:35PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 04:55:38PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:48:49PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> > Am 2020-06-19 um 2:18 p.m. schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:09:35PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >> On F
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:18:49PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:09:35PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:23:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > &
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:30:32PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>
> Am 2020-06-19 um 3:11 p.m. schrieb Alex Deucher:
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:09 PM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:23:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> On Fri,
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:35:35PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Am 2020-06-11 um 10:15 a.m. schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 10:34:30AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> I still have my doubts about allowing fence waiting from within shrinkers.
> >>> IMO ideally they should us
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 02:23:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 06:19:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> > The madness is only that device B's mmu notifier might need to wait
> > for fence_B so that the dma operation finishes. Which in turn has to
> > wait for device A
On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:42:12AM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:23:31AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 10:03 AM Linus Torvalds
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll try to figure the code out, but my initial reaction was "yeah,
> > > not in my VM".
> >
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:33:02PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:06:08PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >
> > > enum mmu_range_notifier_event {
> > > MMU_NOTIFY_RELEASE,
> > > };
> > >
> > > ...assuming that we stay with "mmu_range_notifier" as a core name for
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:32:25AM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:11:06PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, J
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 08:11:06PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:08:07PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Extra credit: IMHO, this clearly deserves to all be in a new
> > > mmu_range_notifier.h
> > > header file, bu
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:23:21PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/28/19 1:10 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
[...]
> > /**
> > * enum mmu_notifier_event - reason for the mmu notifier callback
> > @@ -32,6 +34,9 @@ struct mmu_notifier_range;
> > * access flags). User should soft dirty the page
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:06:00PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:40:41PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:27PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe
> > >
> > > 8 of the mmu_notifie
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 23.10.19 um 11:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 03:01:13PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:57:35AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The unusual bit in all of this is
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 07:24:53PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 03:11:57PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > Since that reader is not locked we need release semantics here to
> > > ensure the unlocked reader sees a fully initinalized mmu_notifier_mm
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:57:42PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:38:24PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:42PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > From: Jason Gunthorpe
> > >
> > > The only two us
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 06:54:25PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 02:30:56PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > > +/**
> > > + * mmu_range_read_retry - End a read side critical section against a VA
> > > range
> > > + * mrn: The
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:27PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> 8 of the mmu_notifier using drivers (i915_gem, radeon_mn, umem_odp, hfi1,
> scif_dma, vhost, gntdev, hmm) drivers are using a common pattern where
> they only use invalidate_range_start/end and immediatel
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:42PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> The only two users of this are now converted to use mmu_range_notifier,
> delete all the code and update hmm.rst.
I guess i should point out that the reasons for hmm_mirror and hmm
was for:
1) Maybe
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:30PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> hmm_mirror's handling of ranges does not use a sequence count which
> results in this bug:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> hmm_range_wait_u
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:28PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> Now that we have KERNEL_HEADER_TEST all headers are generally compile
> tested, so relying on makefile tricks to avoid compiling code that depends
> on CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER is more annoying.
>
> Instead f
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:29PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> Of the 13 users of mmu_notifiers, 8 of them use only
> invalidate_range_start/end() and immediately intersect the
> mmu_notifier_range with some kind of internal list of VAs. 4 use an
> interval tree (i9
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 03:12:31PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> From: Jason Gunthorpe
>
> Only the function calls are stubbed out with static inlines that always
> fail. This is the standard way to write a header for an optional component
> and makes it easier for drivers that only optionally
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:52:56PM +, Yang, Philip wrote:
> hmm_range_fault may return NULL pages because some of pfns are equal to
> HMM_PFN_NONE. This happens randomly under memory pressure. The reason is
> for swapped out page pte path, hmm_vma_handle_pte doesn't update fault
> variable from
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:41:33PM +, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:33:06PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > So nor HMM nor driver should dereference the struct page (i do not
> > think any iommu driver would either),
>
> Er, they do technical
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:12:22PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:44 PM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:36:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:07 AM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > >
&
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:36:58PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:07 AM Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:48:28AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > >
&
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:48:28AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:38:54AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 06:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > Section alignment constraint
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 05:58:52PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 08:02:14AM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> > When memory is migrated to the GPU it is likely to be accessed by GPU
> > code soon afterwards. Instead of waiting for a GPU fault, map the
> >
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 08:02:14AM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> When memory is migrated to the GPU it is likely to be accessed by GPU
> code soon afterwards. Instead of waiting for a GPU fault, map the
> migrated memory into the GPU page tables with the same access permissions
> as the source CPU
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 02:27:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 19:53:23 + "Kuehling, Felix"
> wrote:
>
> > From: Philip Yang
> >
> > While the page is migrating by NUMA balancing, HMM failed to detect this
> > condition and still return the old page. Application will
when you are not expecting it too ?
Cheers,
Jérôme
>
> Thanks,
> Felix
>
> On 2019-05-10 4:14 p.m., Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > [CAUTION: External Email]
> >
> > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:53:24PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> >> Don't set this fl
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:53:24PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> Don't set this flag by default in hmm_vma_do_fault. It is set
> conditionally just a few lines below. Setting it unconditionally
> can lead to handle_mm_fault doing a non-blocking fault, returning
> -EBUSY and unlocking mmap_sem une
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:53:23PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> From: Philip Yang
>
> While the page is migrating by NUMA balancing, HMM failed to detect this
> condition and still return the old page. Application will use the new
> page migrated, but driver pass the old page physical address
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> See the attached dmesg excerpt. I've hit this a few times running piglit
> with amd-staging-drm-next, first on February 22nd.
>
> The memory was freed after calling hmm_mirror_unregister in
> amdgpu_mn_destroy.
So that branch is
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:17:33AM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-20 6:34 p.m., Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:39:49PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> >> On 2019-02-20 5:12 p.m., Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:39:49PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2019-02-20 5:12 p.m., Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:18:17PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> >> [+Jerome]
> >>
> >> Why to we need ZONE_DEVICE. I didn't think th
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 07:18:17PM +, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> [+Jerome]
>
> Why to we need ZONE_DEVICE. I didn't think this was needed for mirroring
> CPU page tables to device page tables.
>
> ARCH_HAS_HMM depends on (X86_64 || PPC64). Do we have some alternative
> for ARM support?
>
> A
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 06:40:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 24-08-18 11:12:40, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> [...]
> > I am fine with Michal patch, i already said so couple month ago first time
> > this discussion did pop up, Michal you can add:
> >
> > Reviewe
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:52:25PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/24 22:32, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 24-08-18 22:02:23, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> I worry that (currently
> >> out-of-tree) users of this API are involving work / recursion.
> >
> > I do not give a slightest about out-of
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 24-08-18 14:18:44, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 24.08.2018 um 14:03 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > > On Fri 24-08-18 13:57:52, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 24.08.2018 um 13:52 schrieb Michal Hocko:
> > > > > On Fri 24-08-18 13:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 07:54:19PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Two more worries for this patch.
[...]
>
> > --- a/mm/hmm.c
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -177,16 +177,19 @@ static void hmm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > struct mm_struct *mm)
> > up_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
> > }
> >
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 06:42:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [Resnding with the CC list fixed]
>
> On Fri 22-06-18 18:40:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 22-06-18 12:18:46, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 05:57:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 22-06-18 16:36:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Michal Hocko (2018-06-22 16:02:42)
> > > Hi,
> > > this is an RFC and not tested at all. I am not very familiar with the
> > > mmu notifiers semantics very much so this is a cru
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 11:09:09AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 29.03.2018 um 08:57 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 12:59:56PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Add a peer2peer flag noting that the imp
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 01:32:37PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 02/04/18 01:16 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > There isn't good API at the moment AFAIK, closest thing would either be
> > lookup_resource() or region_intersects(), but a more appropriate one can
&g
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:37:07AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 02/04/18 11:20 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > The point i have been trying to get accross is that you do have this
> > information with dma_map_resource() you know the device to which you
> > are
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 11:02:10AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 30/03/18 01:45 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > Looking at upstream code it seems that the x86 bits never made it upstream
> > and thus what is now upstream is only for ARM. See [1] for x86 code. Dunno
&
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:46:42PM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 29/03/18 07:58 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:25:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29/03/18 10:10 AM, Christian König wrote:
> >&g
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:33:34PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 09:58:54PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > dma_map_resource() is the right API (thought its current implementation
> > is fill with x86 assumptions). So i would argue that arch can decide t
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 10:25:52AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 29/03/18 10:10 AM, Christian König wrote:
> > Why not? I mean the dma_map_resource() function is for P2P while other
> > dma_map_* functions are only for system memory.
>
> Oh, hmm, I wasn't aware dma_map_resource was exc
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:01:21AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:58:55AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 22.03.2018 um 08:18 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 21.03.2018 um 09:28 schrieb Daniel Ve
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 05:44:41PM -0500, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Christian raised two potential issues in a recent KFD upstreaming code
> review that are related to the KFD ioctl APIs:
>
> 1. behaviour of -ERESTARTSYS
> 2. transactional nature of KFD ioctl definitions, or lack ther
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 07:19:19PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> On 2017-08-31 03:00 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > I was not saying you should not use mmu_notifier. For achieving B you need
> > mmu_notifier. Note that if you do like ODP/KVM then you do not need to
> > pin page
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:39:17PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> On 2017-08-31 09:59 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > [Adding Intel folks as they might be interested in this discussion]
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >> Hi
[Adding Intel folks as they might be interested in this discussion]
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:51:52PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Hi Jérôme,
>
> I have some questions about the potential range-start-end race you
> mentioned.
>
> On 2017-08-29 07:54 PM, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> > Note that a lo
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 05:11:24PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> >
> > Note this is barely tested. I intend to do more testing of next few days
> > but i do not have access to all hardware that make use of the mmu_notifier
> > API.
>
> Than
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 10:21:48PM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:20PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> >> From: Moses Reuben
> >>
> >> v2:
> >> * Renamed ALLO
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:00:20PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> From: Moses Reuben
>
> v2:
> * Renamed ALLOC_MEMORY_OF_SCRATCH to SET_SCRATCH_BACKING_VA
> * Removed size parameter from the ioctl, it was unused
> * Removed hole in ioctl number space
> * No more call to write_config_static_mem
>
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 10:57:27AM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 09.03.2017 um 04:44 schrieb Alex Deucher:
> > From: Ken Wang
> >
> > Newer asics use 64 bit wptrs
>
> We need a better patch description. Newer asics doesn't use 64bit wptrs, but
> rather need them!
>
> E.g. if the wptr is no
I hate to shime in but from review point of view what i don't undersntand is why
isn't there a single reviewable patchset for DAL ?
What i mean by that is a patchset in which you collapse all fixes and cleanup so
that there is an easy way to review thing. Yes this means loosing history and
major w
68 matches
Mail list logo
