search for: hmm_update

The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range directly. Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse at redhat.com> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox....

On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 02:05:06PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote: > The hmm_mirror_ops callback function sync_cpu_device_pagetables() passes > a struct hmm_update which is a simplified version of struct > mmu_notifier_range. This is unnecessary so replace hmm_update with > mmu_notifier_range directly. > > Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com> > Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse at redhat.com> > Cc: Jason...

Looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> One comment on a related cleanup: > list_for_each_entry(mirror, &hmm->mirrors, list) { > int rc; > > - rc = mirror->ops->sync_cpu_device_pagetables(mirror, &update); > + rc = mirror->ops->sync_cpu_device_pagetables(mirror, nrange); > if (rc) { > - if

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:28:58PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > Humm. Actually having looked this some more, I wonder if this is a > problem: What a mess. Question: do we even care for the non-blocking events? The only place where mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock is called is the oom killer, which means the process is about to die and the pagetable will get torn down ASAP.

On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Looks good: > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > > > list_for_each_entry(mirror, &hmm->mirrors, list) { > > > int rc; > > >

On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout. Most of them simply did trylock early in the > > process and bailed out

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:21:55PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > If we change the register to keep the hlist sorted by address then we > can do a targetted 'undo' of past starts terminated by address > less-than comparison of the first failing struct mmu_notifier. > > It relies on the fact that rcu is only used to remove items, the list > adds are all protected by mm

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:59:10PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 20:56:17, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > > back then, none of the

On Wed 24-07-19 20:56:17, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 15:08:37, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > [...] > > > Maybe new users have started relying on a new semantic in the meantime, > > > back then, none of the notifier has even started any action in blocking > > > mode on a EAGAIN bailout.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 07:58:58PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 24-07-19 12:28:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Looks good: > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > > > > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > > > >

...r things I found to clean up. This was based on top of Christoph's seven patches: "hmm_range_fault related fixes and legacy API removal v3". I assume this will go into Jason's tree since there will likely be more HMM changes in this cycle. Changes from v1 to v2: Added AMD GPU to hmm_update removal. Added 2 patches from Christoph. Added 2 patches as a result of Jason's suggestions. Christoph Hellwig (2): mm/hmm: replace the block argument to hmm_range_fault with a flags value mm: merge hmm_range_snapshot into hmm_range_fault Ralph Campbell (5): mm/hmm: replace hmm_upda...

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:05:53AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > > One comment on a related cleanup: > > > list_for_each_entry(mirror, &hmm->mirrors, list) { > > int rc; > > > > - rc = mirror->ops->sync_cpu_device_pagetables(mirror, &update); > > +

Hi Dan, Jérôme and Jason, below is a series that cleans up the dev_pagemap interface so that it is more easily usable, which removes the need to wrap it in hmm and thus allowing to kill a lot of code Note: this series is on top of Linux 5.2-rc6 and has some minor conflicts with the hmm tree that are easy to resolve. Diffstat summary: 34 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 1016 deletions(-) Git

...e device driver must not return from this callback until the device - * page tables are completely updated (TLBs flushed, etc); this is a - * synchronous call. - */ - int (*sync_cpu_device_pagetables)(struct hmm_mirror *mirror, - const struct hmm_update *update); - }; - -The device driver must perform the update action to the range (mark range -read only, or fully unmap, etc.). The device must complete the update before -the driver callback returns. +registration of a mmu_interval_notifier:: + + mni->ops = &driver_ops; + int mmu_interval_no...

Hi Jérôme, Ben and Jason, below is a series against the hmm tree which fixes up the mmap_sem locking in nouveau and while at it also removes leftover legacy HMM APIs only used by nouveau. The first 4 patches are a bug fix for nouveau, which I suspect should go into this merge window even if the code is marked as staging, just to avoid people copying the breakage. Changes since v1: - don't

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> 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 immediately check the invalidating range against some driver data structure to tell if the driver is interested. Half of them use an interval_tree, the others

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> 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 immediately check the invalidating range against some driver data structure to tell if the driver is interested. Half of them use an interval_tree, the others