Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "mmu_notifier_count".
2019 Jul 24
2
[PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range
...they fail.
>
> But that requires that they share some state, right?
>
> > When the commit was landed you can use KVM as an example of A and RDMA
> > ODP as an example of B
>
> Could you point me where those two share the state please? KVM seems to
> be using kvm->mmu_notifier_count but I do not know where to look for the
> RDMA...
Scratch that. ELONGDAY... I can see your point. It is all or nothing
that doesn't really work here. Looking back at your patch it seems
reasonable but I am not sure what is supposed to be a behavior for
notifiers that failed.
--
Michal Hock...
2019 Jul 24
2
[PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range
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:
> > >
> > >
2019 Jul 24
0
[PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range
...gt; A and B *alone* work fine, combined they fail.
But that requires that they share some state, right?
> When the commit was landed you can use KVM as an example of A and RDMA
> ODP as an example of B
Could you point me where those two share the state please? KVM seems to
be using kvm->mmu_notifier_count but I do not know where to look for the
RDMA...
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
2019 Jul 24
0
[PATCH] mm/hmm: replace hmm_update with mmu_notifier_range
...requires that they share some state, right?
> >
> > > When the commit was landed you can use KVM as an example of A and RDMA
> > > ODP as an example of B
> >
> > Could you point me where those two share the state please? KVM seems to
> > be using kvm->mmu_notifier_count but I do not know where to look for the
> > RDMA...
>
> Scratch that. ELONGDAY... I can see your point. It is all or nothing
> that doesn't really work here. Looking back at your patch it seems
> reasonable but I am not sure what is supposed to be a behavior for
> notifier...