similar to: [PATCH] mm: Remove double faults once write a device pfn

Am 23.01.24 um 09:33 schrieb Zhou, Xianrong: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not make >>> the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or dirty >>> catching. >> What? How do you got to this conclusion?

Am 24.01.24 um 03:43 schrieb Zhou, Xianrong: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >>>>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >>>>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not make >>>>> the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or dirty >>>>> catching. >>>>

"Zhou, Xianrong" <Xianrong.Zhou at amd.com> writes: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > >> >>>>> The vmf_insert_pfn_prot could cause unnecessary double faults on a >> >>>>> device pfn. Because currently the vmf_insert_pfn_prot does not >> >>>>> make the pfn writable so the pte entry is normally read-only or

Hello Christian K?nig, The patch 141b15e59175: "drm/nouveau: move io_reserve_lru handling into the driver v5" from Aug 21, 2020, leads to the following static checker warning: drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c:148 nouveau_ttm_fault() warn: inconsistent returns '*bo->base.resv'. drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_ttm.c 126 static vm_fault_t nouveau_ttm_fault(struct

From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> That is not used any more. v2: keep the NULL checks in TTM. Signed-off-by: Christian K?nig <christian.koenig at amd.com> Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> --- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 34 +-------- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c | 113 +++--------------------------

From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by Nouveau is actually not working at all. In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. The patch should be functional correct, but is only compile

While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by Nouveau is actually not working at all. In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. v2: don't call ttm_bo_unmap_virtual in nouveau_ttm_io_mem_reserve v3: rebased and use both base and offset in the check v4:

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 03:12:53PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by > Nouveau is actually not working at all. > > In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory > management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau > instead. > > The patch should be

Without diving in any of the details, your commit message has me curious and concerned... In a "manager" kind of way, despite being neither a manager nor an insider or active contributor. ;-) On 24/01/2020 14:30, Christian K?nig wrote: > From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> > > While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru

While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by Nouveau is actually not working at all. In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory management, so this patch moves the io_reserve_lru handling into Nouveau instead. The patch should be functional correct, but is only compile tested! Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at

On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 00:30, Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Christian K?nig <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com> > > While working on TTM cleanups I've found that the io_reserve_lru used by > Nouveau is actually not working at all. > > In general we should remove driver specific handling from the memory > management,

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 10:51 AM Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2 at huawei.com> wrote: > > From: Longpeng <longpeng2 at huawei.com> > > Adds get_vq_notification_pgprot operation to vdpa_config_ops to support > specify the pgprot of vq norification area. It's an optional operation, > the vdpa framework will treat the pgprot of vq notification area as > noncached as

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:22:49AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I love your patch! Yet something to improve: > > [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] > [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.7 next-20200529] > [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help > improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 02:49:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/6/2 ??12:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:22:49AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > > Hi Jason, > > > > > > I love your patch! Yet something to improve: > > > > > > [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] > > > [also build

Hi Jason, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.7 next-20200529] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the base tree in git format-patch, please see

Hi Jason, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] [also build test ERROR on linus/master v5.7 next-20200529] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the base tree in git format-patch, please see

On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 12:18:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2020/6/2 ??9:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 02:49:38PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2020/6/2 ??12:56, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 03:22:49AM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > > > > > Hi Jason, > > > > >

Currently the doorbell is relayed via eventfd which may have significant overhead because of the cost of vmexits or syscall. This patch introduces mmap() based doorbell mapping which can eliminate the overhead caused by vmexit or syscall. To ease the userspace modeling of the doorbell layout (usually virtio-pci), this patch starts from a doorbell per page model. Vhost-vdpa only support the

This replaces the hacky ->fault callback, which is currently directly called from common code through a hmm specific data structure as an exercise in layering violations. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> --- include/linux/hmm.h | 6 ------ include/linux/memremap.h | 6 ++++++ include/linux/swapops.h | 15 --------------- kernel/memremap.c | 31

On 6/13/19 2:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This replaces the hacky ->fault callback, which is currently directly > called from common code through a hmm specific data structure as an > exercise in layering violations. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst.de> > --- > include/linux/hmm.h | 6 ------ > include/linux/memremap.h | 6 ++++++