Displaying 12 results from an estimated 12 matches for "_mm".
Did you mean:
__m
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 14/14] i386 / Introduce hypervisor lazy pinning hooks
...linux-2.6.13.orig/include/asm-i386/mmu_context.h 2005-08-10 17:06:52.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.13/include/asm-i386/mmu_context.h 2005-08-10 17:11:40.000000000 -0700
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/pgalloc.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
+#include <mach_mmu.h>
/*
* Used for LDT copy/destruction.
@@ -15,12 +16,14 @@
struct mm_struct * old_mm;
int retval = 0;
+ memset(&mm->context, 0, sizeof(mm->context));
init_MUTEX(&mm->context.sem);
- mm->context.size = 0;
old_mm = current->mm;
if (old_mm && unlikel...
2007 Apr 18
0
[PATCH 14/14] i386 / Introduce hypervisor lazy pinning hooks
...linux-2.6.13.orig/include/asm-i386/mmu_context.h 2005-08-10 17:06:52.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.13/include/asm-i386/mmu_context.h 2005-08-10 17:11:40.000000000 -0700
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
#include <asm/atomic.h>
#include <asm/pgalloc.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
+#include <mach_mmu.h>
/*
* Used for LDT copy/destruction.
@@ -15,12 +16,14 @@
struct mm_struct * old_mm;
int retval = 0;
+ memset(&mm->context, 0, sizeof(mm->context));
init_MUTEX(&mm->context.sem);
- mm->context.size = 0;
old_mm = current->mm;
if (old_mm && unlikel...
2016 Jan 13
4
RFC: non-temporal fencing in LLVM IR
...ebases confirm this). There's one
problem with this approach: non-temporal accesses on x86 are only ordered
by fence instructions! This means that code using non-temporal accesses
can't rely on LLVM's fence opcode to do the right thing, they instead have
to rely on architecture-specific _mm*fence intrinsics.
*But wait! Who said developers need to issue any type of fence when using
non-temporals?*
Well, the LLVM memory model sure didn't. The x86 memory model does (volume
3 section 8.2.2 Memory Ordering) but LLVM targets more than x86 and the
backends are free to ignore the !nont...
2015 Mar 20
2
[PATCH 1/3] platform: release IOMMU's mm upon exit
nvkm_mm_fini() was not called when exiting the driver, resulting in a
memory leak. Fix this.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at nvidia.com>
---
drm/nouveau/nouveau_platform.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drm/nouveau/nouveau_platform.c b/drm/nouveau/nouveau_platform...
2016 Jan 14
2
RFC: non-temporal fencing in LLVM IR
...this approach: non-temporal accesses on
> > x86
> > are only ordered by fence instructions! This means that code using
> > non-temporal accesses can't rely on LLVM's fence opcode to do the
> > right thing, they instead have to rely on architecture-specific
> > _mm*fence intrinsics.
>
> Just for clarify: the proposal to change the implementation of
> ceq_cst is arguable separate from this proposal. It will go through
> normal patch review once the semantics are addressed. Whatever we
> end up doing with ceq_cst, we currently have a semantic ho...
2015 Feb 20
6
[PATCH v4 0/6] nouveau/gk20a: RAM device removal & IOMMU support
Changes since v3:
- Use a single dma_attr for all DMA-API allocations in instmem instead of one
per allocation
- Use device.info.ram_size instead of pfb->ram to check whether VRAM is present
outside of nvkm
Changes since v2:
- Cleaner changes for ltc
- Fixed typos in gk20a instmem IOMMU comments
Changes since v1:
- Add missing else condition in ltc
- Remove extra flags that slipped into
2015 Feb 11
9
[PATCH v2 0/6] nouveau/gk20a: RAM device removal & IOMMU support
Changes since v1:
- Add missing else condition in ltc
- Remove extra flags that slipped into nouveau_display.c and nv84_fence.c.
Original cover letter:
Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove GK20A's dummy
RAM driver we were using so far. On chips using shared memory, such a device
can confuse the driver into moving objects where there is no need to, and can
trick
2015 Jan 23
8
[PATCH 0/6] nouveau/gk20a: RAM device removal & IOMMU support
A series I have waited too long to submit, and the recent refactoring made
me pay the price of my perfectionism, so here are the features that are at least
completed
Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove GK20A's dummy
RAM driver we were using so far. On chips using shared memory, such a device
can confuse the driver into moving objects where there is no need to,
2005 Nov 28
1
Is samba or a kernel bug causing my FC4 server to crash?
...rnel: SMP
Nov 8 17:21:53 poseidon kernel: Modules linked in: nfs lockd nfs_acl smbfs radeon drm parport_pc
lp parport autofs4 i2c_dev i2c_core rfcomm l2cap bluetooth sunrpc ipv6 dm_mod video button battery
ac uhci_hcd ehci_hcd hw_random shpchp e1000 floppy mptspi sg ext3 jbd megaraid_mbox megaraid_mm m
ptscsih mptbase sd_mod scsi_mod
Nov 8 17:21:53 poseidon kernel: CPU: 3
Nov 8 17:21:53 poseidon kernel: EIP: 0060:[<f8b4b5a4>] Not tainted VLI
Nov 8 17:21:53 poseidon kernel: EFLAGS: 00010206 (2.6.13-1.1532_FC4smp)
Nov 8 17:21:53 poseidon kernel: EIP is at smbiod+0xef/0x184 [s...
2015 Feb 17
8
[PATCH v3 0/6] nouveau/gk20a: RAM device removal & IOMMU support
Thanks Ilia for the v2 review! Here is the v3 of this IOMMU support for GK20A
series.
Changes since v2:
- Cleaner changes for ltc
- Fixed typos in gk20a instmem IOMMU comments
Changes since v1:
- Add missing else condition in ltc
- Remove extra flags that slipped into nouveau_display.c and nv84_fence.c.
Original cover letter:
Patches 1-3 make the presence of a RAM device optional, and remove
2016 Jan 13
2
RFC: non-temporal fencing in LLVM IR
.... There's one
> problem with this approach: non-temporal accesses on x86 are only ordered
> by fence instructions! This means that code using non-temporal accesses
> can't rely on LLVM's fence opcode to do the right thing, they instead
> have to rely on architecture-specific _mm*fence intrinsics.
>
>
>
>
>
> *But wait! Who said developers need to issue any type of fence when using
> non-temporals?*
>
>
>
> Well, the LLVM memory model sure didn't. The x86 memory model does (volume
> 3 section 8.2.2 Memory Ordering) but LLVM targets mo...
2008 Jun 30
4
Rebuild of kernel 2.6.9-67.0.20.EL failure
Hello list.
I'm trying to rebuild the 2.6.9.67.0.20.EL kernel, but it fails even without
modifications.
How did I try it?
Created a (non-root) build environment (not a mock )
Installed the kernel.scr.rpm and did a
rpmbuild -ba --target=`uname -m` kernel-2.6.spec 2> prep-err.log | tee
prep-out.log
The build failed at the end:
Processing files: kernel-xenU-devel-2.6.9-67.0.20.EL
Checking