On 12/19/20 2:06 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/17/20 12:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:05:37PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
No reason not to fix set_page_dirty_lock() too while you are here.
>>>
>>> The wack of atomics you mentioned earlier you referred to, I suppo
On 12/17/20 12:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:05:37PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
No reason not to fix set_page_dirty_lock() too while you are here.
The wack of atomics you mentioned earlier you referred to, I suppose it
ends being account_page_dirtied(). See partial d
On 12/17/20 8:05 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:05:37PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
>>> No reason not to fix set_page_dirty_lock() too while you are here.
>>
>> The wack of atomics you mentioned earlier you referred to, I suppose it
>> ends being account_page_dirtied(). See
On 12/8/20 7:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> @@ -274,6 +291,7 @@ void unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages,
>> unsigned long npages,
>> bool make_dirty)
>> {
>> unsigned long index;
>> +int refs = 1;
>>
>> /*
>> * TODO: this can be o
On 12/8/20 7:34 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:28:59PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
>> Rather than decrementing the ref count one by one, we
>> walk the page array and checking which belong to the same
>> compound_head. Later on we decrement the calculated amount
>> of refere
On 12/8/20 11:34 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:28:59PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
Rather than decrementing the ref count one by one, we
walk the page array and checking which belong to the same
compound_head. Later on we decrement the calculated amount
of references in a
Rather than decrementing the ref count one by one, we
walk the page array and checking which belong to the same
compound_head. Later on we decrement the calculated amount
of references in a single write to the head page.
Signed-off-by: Joao Martins
---
mm/gup.c | 41 +
