From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>, Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inr ia.fr>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:30:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfde5e3-e1e2-2097-afa1-303042de5e07@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h=oBnzmP2PHAFX6H2jsNq8zSUzQLYySj0Ke7FAqZwb0A@mail.gmail.com>
On 21.08.20 20:27, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. On x86-64, e820 indicates "soft-reserved" memory. This memory is not
>>>> automatically used in the buddy during boot, but remains untouched
>>>> (similar to pmem). But as it involves ACPI as well, it could also be
>>>> used on arm64 (-e820), correct?
>>>
>>> Correct, arm64 also gets the EFI support for enumerating memory this
>>> way. However, I would clarify that whether soft-reserved is given to
>>> the buddy allocator by default or not is the kernel's policy choice,
>>> "buddy-by-default" is ok and is what will happen anyways with older
>>> kernels on platforms that enumerate a memory range this way.
>>
>> Is "soft-reserved" then the right terminology for that? It sounds very
>> x86-64/e820 specific. Maybe a compressed for of "performance
>> differentiated memory" might be a better fit to expose to user space, no?
>
> No. The EFI "Specific Purpose" bit is an attribute independent of
> e820, it's x86-Linux that entangles those together. There is no
> requirement for platform firmware to use that designation even for
> drastic performance differentiation between ranges, and conversely
> there is no requirement that memory *with* that designation has any
> performance difference compared to the default memory pool. So it
> really is a reservation policy about a memory range to keep out of the
> buddy allocator by default.
Okay, still "soft-reserved" is x86-64 specific, no? (AFAIK,
"soft-reserved" will be visible in /proc/iomem, or am I confusing
stuff?) IOW, it "performance differentiated" is not universally
applicable, maybe "specific purpose memory" is ?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>, Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:30:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfde5e3-e1e2-2097-afa1-303042de5e07@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h=oBnzmP2PHAFX6H2jsNq8zSUzQLYySj0Ke7FAqZwb0A@mail.gmail.com>
On 21.08.20 20:27, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. On x86-64, e820 indicates "soft-reserved" memory. This memory is not
>>>> automatically used in the buddy during boot, but remains untouched
>>>> (similar to pmem). But as it involves ACPI as well, it could also be
>>>> used on arm64 (-e820), correct?
>>>
>>> Correct, arm64 also gets the EFI support for enumerating memory this
>>> way. However, I would clarify that whether soft-reserved is given to
>>> the buddy allocator by default or not is the kernel's policy choice,
>>> "buddy-by-default" is ok and is what will happen anyways with older
>>> kernels on platforms that enumerate a memory range this way.
>>
>> Is "soft-reserved" then the right terminology for that? It sounds very
>> x86-64/e820 specific. Maybe a compressed for of "performance
>> differentiated memory" might be a better fit to expose to user space, no?
>
> No. The EFI "Specific Purpose" bit is an attribute independent of
> e820, it's x86-Linux that entangles those together. There is no
> requirement for platform firmware to use that designation even for
> drastic performance differentiation between ranges, and conversely
> there is no requirement that memory *with* that designation has any
> performance difference compared to the default memory pool. So it
> really is a reservation policy about a memory range to keep out of the
> buddy allocator by default.
Okay, still "soft-reserved" is x86-64 specific, no? (AFAIK,
"soft-reserved" will be visible in /proc/iomem, or am I confusing
stuff?) IOW, it "performance differentiated" is not universally
applicable, maybe "specific purpose memory" is ?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>, Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:30:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfde5e3-e1e2-2097-afa1-303042de5e07@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h=oBnzmP2PHAFX6H2jsNq8zSUzQLYySj0Ke7FAqZwb0A@mail.gmail.com>
On 21.08.20 20:27, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. On x86-64, e820 indicates "soft-reserved" memory. This memory is not
>>>> automatically used in the buddy during boot, but remains untouched
>>>> (similar to pmem). But as it involves ACPI as well, it could also be
>>>> used on arm64 (-e820), correct?
>>>
>>> Correct, arm64 also gets the EFI support for enumerating memory this
>>> way. However, I would clarify that whether soft-reserved is given to
>>> the buddy allocator by default or not is the kernel's policy choice,
>>> "buddy-by-default" is ok and is what will happen anyways with older
>>> kernels on platforms that enumerate a memory range this way.
>>
>> Is "soft-reserved" then the right terminology for that? It sounds very
>> x86-64/e820 specific. Maybe a compressed for of "performance
>> differentiated memory" might be a better fit to expose to user space, no?
>
> No. The EFI "Specific Purpose" bit is an attribute independent of
> e820, it's x86-Linux that entangles those together. There is no
> requirement for platform firmware to use that designation even for
> drastic performance differentiation between ranges, and conversely
> there is no requirement that memory *with* that designation has any
> performance difference compared to the default memory pool. So it
> really is a reservation policy about a memory range to keep out of the
> buddy allocator by default.
Okay, still "soft-reserved" is x86-64 specific, no? (AFAIK,
"soft-reserved" will be visible in /proc/iomem, or am I confusing
stuff?) IOW, it "performance differentiated" is not universally
applicable, maybe "specific purpose memory" is ?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>,
Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 20:30:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dfde5e3-e1e2-2097-afa1-303042de5e07@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h=oBnzmP2PHAFX6H2jsNq8zSUzQLYySj0Ke7FAqZwb0A@mail.gmail.com>
On 21.08.20 20:27, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. On x86-64, e820 indicates "soft-reserved" memory. This memory is not
>>>> automatically used in the buddy during boot, but remains untouched
>>>> (similar to pmem). But as it involves ACPI as well, it could also be
>>>> used on arm64 (-e820), correct?
>>>
>>> Correct, arm64 also gets the EFI support for enumerating memory this
>>> way. However, I would clarify that whether soft-reserved is given to
>>> the buddy allocator by default or not is the kernel's policy choice,
>>> "buddy-by-default" is ok and is what will happen anyways with older
>>> kernels on platforms that enumerate a memory range this way.
>>
>> Is "soft-reserved" then the right terminology for that? It sounds very
>> x86-64/e820 specific. Maybe a compressed for of "performance
>> differentiated memory" might be a better fit to expose to user space, no?
>
> No. The EFI "Specific Purpose" bit is an attribute independent of
> e820, it's x86-Linux that entangles those together. There is no
> requirement for platform firmware to use that designation even for
> drastic performance differentiation between ranges, and conversely
> there is no requirement that memory *with* that designation has any
> performance difference compared to the default memory pool. So it
> really is a reservation policy about a memory range to keep out of the
> buddy allocator by default.
Okay, still "soft-reserved" is x86-64 specific, no? (AFAIK,
"soft-reserved" will be visible in /proc/iomem, or am I confusing
stuff?) IOW, it "performance differentiated" is not universally
applicable, maybe "specific purpose memory" is ?
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 174+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-03 5:02 [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 01/23] x86/numa: Cleanup configuration dependent command-line options Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 02/23] x86/numa: Add 'nohmat' option Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 03/23] efi/fake_mem: Arrange for a resource entry per efi_fake_mem instance Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 04/23] ACPI: HMAT: Refactor hmat_register_target_device to hmem_register_device Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 05/23] resource: Report parent to walk_iomem_res_desc() callback Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` [PATCH v4 06/23] mm/memory_hotplug: Introduce default phys_to_target_node() implementation Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:02 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 07/23] ACPI: HMAT: Attach a device for each soft-reserved range Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 08/23] device-dax: Drop the dax_region.pfn_flags attribute Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 09/23] device-dax: Move instance creation parameters to 'struct dev_dax_data' Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 10/23] device-dax: Make pgmap optional for instance creation Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 11/23] device-dax: Kill dax_kmem_res Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 10:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 10:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 10:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 15:33 ` Joao Martins
2020-09-08 15:33 ` Joao Martins
2020-09-08 15:33 ` Joao Martins
2020-09-08 18:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 18:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 18:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-23 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-23 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-23 8:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-23 21:41 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 21:41 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 21:41 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 21:41 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 7:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 7:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 7:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 7:25 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 13:54 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 13:54 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 13:54 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 13:54 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 18:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 18:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 18:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 18:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 21:26 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:26 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:26 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:26 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 21:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 21:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 21:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-24 21:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-24 21:50 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-25 8:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25 8:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25 8:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-25 8:54 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 12/23] device-dax: Add an allocation interface for device-dax instances Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 13/23] device-dax: Introduce 'seed' devices Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 14/23] drivers/base: Make device_find_child_by_name() compatible with sysfs inputs Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 15/23] device-dax: Add resize support Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-21 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-21 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 16/23] mm/memremap_pages: Convert to 'struct range' Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` [PATCH v4 17/23] mm/memremap_pages: Support multiple ranges per invocation Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:03 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 18/23] device-dax: Add dis-contiguous resource support Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 19/23] device-dax: Introduce 'mapping' devices Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 20/23] device-dax: Make align a per-device property Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 21/23] device-dax: Add an 'align' attribute Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 22/23] dax/hmem: Introduce dax_hmem.region_idle parameter Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` [PATCH v4 23/23] device-dax: Add a range mapping allocation attribute Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 5:04 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-03 7:47 ` [PATCH v4 00/23] device-dax: Support sub-dividing soft-reserved ranges David Hildenbrand
2020-08-03 7:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-03 7:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-20 1:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-20 1:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-20 1:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-20 1:53 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 10:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 10:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 10:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 10:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 18:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 18:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 18:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 18:27 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 18:30 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-08-21 18:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 18:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 18:30 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 21:17 ` Dan Williams
2020-08-21 21:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 21:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-08-21 23:21 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-21 23:21 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-21 23:21 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-21 23:21 ` Andrew Morton
2020-08-22 2:32 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2020-08-22 2:32 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2020-08-22 2:32 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2020-08-22 2:32 ` Leizhen (ThunderTown)
2020-09-08 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-08 10:45 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-09-23 0:43 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 0:43 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 0:43 ` Dan Williams
2020-09-23 0:43 ` Dan Williams
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=3dfde5e3-e1e2-2097-afa1-303042de5e07@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=Brice.Goglin@inr \
--cc=Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
--cc=joao.m.martins@oracle.com \
--cc=justin.he@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.