From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:30:00 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <12b6a576-7a64-102c-f4d7-7a4ad34df710@nvidia.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-13-ira.weiny@intel.com> On 8/9/19 3:58 PM, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > > Once callers start to use vaddr_pin the put_user_pages calls will need > to have access to this data coming in. Prep put_user_pages() for this > data. > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > --- > include/linux/mm.h | 20 +------- > mm/gup.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h > index befe150d17be..9d37cafbef9a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > @@ -1064,25 +1064,7 @@ static inline void put_page(struct page *page) > __put_page(page); > } > > -/** > - * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > - * @page: pointer to page to be released > - * > - * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > - * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > - * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > - * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > - * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > - * handling. > - * > - * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > - * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > - * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > - */ > -static inline void put_user_page(struct page *page) > -{ > - put_page(page); > -} > +void put_user_page(struct page *page); > > void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > bool make_dirty); > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index a7a9d2f5278c..10cfd30ff668 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -24,30 +24,41 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > -/** > - * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > - * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. A couple comments from our circular review chain: some fellow with the same last name as you, recommended wording it like this: @pages: array of pages to be put > - * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > - * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > - * > - * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > - * variants called on that page. > - * > - * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > - * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > - * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > - * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > - * > - * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > - * > - * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > - * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > - * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > - * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > - * > - */ > -void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > - bool make_dirty) > +static void __put_user_page(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page *page) > +{ > + page = compound_head(page); > + > + /* > + * For devmap managed pages we need to catch refcount transition from > + * GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS to 1, when refcount reach one it means the > + * page is free and we need to inform the device driver through > + * callback. See include/linux/memremap.h and HMM for details. > + */ > + if (put_devmap_managed_page(page)) > + return; > + > + if (put_page_testzero(page)) > + __put_page(page); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages) > +{ > + unsigned long index; > + > + /* > + * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > + * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > + * single operation to the head page should suffice. > + */ As discussed in the other review thread (""), let's just delete that comment, as long as you're moving things around. > + for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, pages[index]); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, > + struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) Elsewhere in this series, we pass vaddr_pin at the end of the arg list. Here we pass it at the beginning, and it caused a minor jar when reading it. Obviously just bike shedding at this point, though. Either way. :) > { > unsigned long index; > > @@ -58,7 +69,7 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > > if (!make_dirty) { > - put_user_pages(pages, npages); > + __put_user_pages(vaddr_pin, pages, npages); > return; > } > > @@ -86,9 +97,58 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > if (!PageDirty(page)) > set_page_dirty_lock(page); > - put_user_page(page); > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, page); > } > } > + > +/** > + * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > + * @page: pointer to page to be released > + * > + * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > + * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > + * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > + * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > + * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > + * handling. > + * > + * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > + * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > + * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > + */ > +void put_user_page(struct page *page) > +{ > + __put_user_page(NULL, page); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_page); > + > +/** > + * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > + * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. Same here: @pages: array of pages to be put > + * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > + * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > + * > + * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > + * variants called on that page. > + * > + * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > + * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > + * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > + * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > + * > + * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > + * > + * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > + * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > + * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > + * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > + * > + */ > +void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) > +{ > + __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(NULL, pages, npages, make_dirty); > +} > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > > /** > @@ -102,15 +162,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > */ > void put_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages) > { > - unsigned long index; > - > - /* > - * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > - * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > - * single operation to the head page should suffice. > - */ > - for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > - put_user_page(pages[index]); > + __put_user_pages(NULL, pages, npages); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages); > > This all looks pretty good, so regardless of the outcome of the minor points above, Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> To: <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:30:00 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <12b6a576-7a64-102c-f4d7-7a4ad34df710@nvidia.com> (raw) Message-ID: <20190810003000.3wklfWQeu7a4djVywTjGsnt8XGL5cqRJoJCoKieZiXs@z> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-13-ira.weiny@intel.com> On 8/9/19 3:58 PM, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > > Once callers start to use vaddr_pin the put_user_pages calls will need > to have access to this data coming in. Prep put_user_pages() for this > data. > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > --- > include/linux/mm.h | 20 +------- > mm/gup.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h > index befe150d17be..9d37cafbef9a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > @@ -1064,25 +1064,7 @@ static inline void put_page(struct page *page) > __put_page(page); > } > > -/** > - * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > - * @page: pointer to page to be released > - * > - * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > - * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > - * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > - * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > - * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > - * handling. > - * > - * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > - * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > - * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > - */ > -static inline void put_user_page(struct page *page) > -{ > - put_page(page); > -} > +void put_user_page(struct page *page); > > void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > bool make_dirty); > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index a7a9d2f5278c..10cfd30ff668 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -24,30 +24,41 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > -/** > - * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > - * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. A couple comments from our circular review chain: some fellow with the same last name as you, recommended wording it like this: @pages: array of pages to be put > - * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > - * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > - * > - * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > - * variants called on that page. > - * > - * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > - * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > - * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > - * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > - * > - * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > - * > - * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > - * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > - * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > - * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > - * > - */ > -void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > - bool make_dirty) > +static void __put_user_page(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page *page) > +{ > + page = compound_head(page); > + > + /* > + * For devmap managed pages we need to catch refcount transition from > + * GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS to 1, when refcount reach one it means the > + * page is free and we need to inform the device driver through > + * callback. See include/linux/memremap.h and HMM for details. > + */ > + if (put_devmap_managed_page(page)) > + return; > + > + if (put_page_testzero(page)) > + __put_page(page); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages) > +{ > + unsigned long index; > + > + /* > + * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > + * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > + * single operation to the head page should suffice. > + */ As discussed in the other review thread (""), let's just delete that comment, as long as you're moving things around. > + for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, pages[index]); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, > + struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) Elsewhere in this series, we pass vaddr_pin at the end of the arg list. Here we pass it at the beginning, and it caused a minor jar when reading it. Obviously just bike shedding at this point, though. Either way. :) > { > unsigned long index; > > @@ -58,7 +69,7 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > > if (!make_dirty) { > - put_user_pages(pages, npages); > + __put_user_pages(vaddr_pin, pages, npages); > return; > } > > @@ -86,9 +97,58 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > if (!PageDirty(page)) > set_page_dirty_lock(page); > - put_user_page(page); > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, page); > } > } > + > +/** > + * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > + * @page: pointer to page to be released > + * > + * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > + * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > + * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > + * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > + * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > + * handling. > + * > + * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > + * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > + * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > + */ > +void put_user_page(struct page *page) > +{ > + __put_user_page(NULL, page); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_page); > + > +/** > + * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > + * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. Same here: @pages: array of pages to be put > + * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > + * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > + * > + * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > + * variants called on that page. > + * > + * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > + * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > + * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > + * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > + * > + * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > + * > + * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > + * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > + * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > + * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > + * > + */ > +void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) > +{ > + __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(NULL, pages, npages, make_dirty); > +} > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > > /** > @@ -102,15 +162,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > */ > void put_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages) > { > - unsigned long index; > - > - /* > - * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > - * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > - * single operation to the head page should suffice. > - */ > - for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > - put_user_page(pages[index]); > + __put_user_pages(NULL, pages, npages); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages); > > This all looks pretty good, so regardless of the outcome of the minor points above, Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-10 0:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 118+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-08-09 22:58 [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/19] fs/locks: Export F_LAYOUT lease to user space ira.weiny 2019-08-09 23:52 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-12 17:36 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-14 8:05 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-14 11:21 ` Jeff Layton 2019-08-14 11:38 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease ira.weiny 2019-08-14 14:15 ` Jeff Layton 2019-08-14 21:56 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-26 10:41 ` Jeff Layton 2019-08-29 23:34 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-04 12:52 ` Jeff Layton 2019-09-04 23:12 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] mm/gup: Pass flags down to __gup_device_huge* calls ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/19] mm/gup: Ensure F_LAYOUT lease is held prior to GUP'ing pages ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/19] fs/ext4: Teach ext4 to break layout leases ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/19] fs/ext4: Teach dax_layout_busy_page() to operate on a sub-range ira.weiny 2019-08-23 15:18 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-29 18:52 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/19] fs/xfs: Teach xfs to use new dax_layout_busy_page() ira.weiny 2019-08-09 23:30 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-12 18:05 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-14 8:04 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/19] fs/xfs: Fail truncate if page lease can't be broken ira.weiny 2019-08-09 23:22 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-12 18:08 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin structure ira.weiny 2019-08-10 0:06 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-10 0:06 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] mm/gup: Pass a NULL vaddr_pin through GUP fast ira.weiny 2019-08-10 0:06 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-10 0:06 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/gup: Pass follow_page_context further down the call stack ira.weiny 2019-08-10 0:18 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-10 0:18 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-12 19:01 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct ira.weiny 2019-08-10 0:30 ` John Hubbard [this message] 2019-08-10 0:30 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-12 20:46 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/19] {mm,file}: Add file_pins objects ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/19] fs/locks: Associate file pins while performing GUP ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin_pages() ira.weiny 2019-08-10 0:09 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-10 0:09 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-12 21:00 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-12 21:20 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-12 21:20 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-11 23:07 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-11 23:07 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-12 21:01 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-12 12:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-12 21:48 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-13 11:47 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-13 17:46 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-13 17:56 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-13 17:56 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system file object ira.weiny 2019-08-12 13:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-12 17:28 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-12 17:56 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-12 21:15 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-13 11:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-13 17:41 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-13 18:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-13 20:38 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-14 12:23 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-14 17:50 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-14 18:15 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-09-04 22:25 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-11 8:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/19] RDMA/umem: Convert to vaddr_[pin|unpin]* operations ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/19] {mm,procfs}: Add display file_pins proc ira.weiny 2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/19] mm/gup: Remove FOLL_LONGTERM DAX exclusion ira.weiny 2019-08-14 10:17 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Jan Kara 2019-08-14 18:08 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-15 13:05 ` Jan Kara 2019-08-16 19:05 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-16 23:20 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny 2019-08-19 6:36 ` Jan Kara 2019-08-17 2:26 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner 2019-08-19 6:34 ` Jan Kara 2019-08-19 9:24 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-19 12:38 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-19 21:53 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-20 1:12 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-20 11:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-21 18:02 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-21 18:13 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-21 18:22 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-21 18:57 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-21 19:06 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-21 19:48 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-21 20:44 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-21 23:49 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-23 3:23 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-23 12:04 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-24 0:11 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-24 5:08 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-26 5:55 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-29 2:02 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-29 3:27 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-29 16:16 ` Ira Weiny 2019-09-02 22:26 ` Dave Chinner 2019-09-04 16:54 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-25 19:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-24 4:49 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-25 19:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe 2019-08-23 0:59 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-23 17:15 ` Ira Weiny 2019-08-24 0:18 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-20 0:05 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-20 1:20 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-20 3:09 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-20 3:36 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-21 18:43 ` John Hubbard 2019-08-21 19:09 ` Ira Weiny
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=12b6a576-7a64-102c-f4d7-7a4ad34df710@nvidia.com \ --to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \ --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \ --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=tytso@mit.edu \ --cc=willy@infradead.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).