From: Jason Gunthorpe <email@example.com>
To: Joao Martins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Dan Williams" <email@example.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Alex Sierra" <email@example.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Kuehling, Felix" <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
"Linux MM" <email@example.com>,
"Ralph Campbell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"amd-gfx list" <email@example.com>,
"Maling list - DRI developers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <email@example.com>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Alistair Popple" <email@example.com>,
"Vishal Verma" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Dave Jiang" <email@example.com>,
"Linux NVDIMM" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"David Hildenbrand" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct page refcount
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:01:36 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211019160136.GH3686969@ziepe.ca> (raw)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 04:13:34PM +0100, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 10/19/21 00:06, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 12:37:30PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> device-dax uses PUD, along with TTM, they are the only places. I'm not
> >>> sure TTM is a real place though.
> >> I was setting device-dax aside because it can use Joao's changes to
> >> get compound-page support.
> > Ideally, but that ideas in that patch series have been floating around
> > for a long time now..
> The current status of the series misses a Rb on patches 6,7,10,12-14.
> Well, patch 8 too should now drop its tag, considering the latest
> If it helps moving things forward I could split my series further into:
> 1) the compound page introduction (patches 1-7) of my aforementioned series
> 2) vmemmap deduplication for memory gains (patches 9-14)
> 3) gup improvements (patch 8 and gup-slow improvements)
I would split it, yes..
I think we can see a general consensus that making compound_head/etc
work consistently with how THP uses it will provide value and
opportunity for optimization going forward.
> Whats the benefit between preventing longterm at start
> versus only after mounting the filesystem? Or is the intended future purpose
> to pass more context into an holder potential future callback e.g. nack longterm
> pins on a page basis?
I understood Dan's remark that the device-dax path allows
FOLL_LONGTERM and the FSDAX path does not ?
Which, IIRC, today is signaled basd on vma properties and in all cases
fast-gup is denied.
> Maybe we can start by at least not add any flags and just prevent
> FOLL_LONGTERM on fsdax -- which I guess was the original purpose of
> commit 7af75561e171 ("mm/gup: add FOLL_LONGTERM capability to GUP fast").
> This patch (which I can formally send) has a sketch of that (below scissors mark):
Yes, basically, whatever test we want for 'deny fast gup foll
longterm' is fine.
Personally I'd like to see us move toward a set of flag specifying
each special behavior and not a collection of types that imply special
Eg we have at least:
- Block gup fast on foll_longterm
- Capture the refcount ==1 and use the pgmap free hook
(confusingly called page_is_devmap_managed())
- Always use a swap entry
- page->index/mapping are used in the usual file based way?
Probably more things..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-19 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-14 15:39 [PATCH v1 0/2] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct page refcount Alex Sierra
2021-10-14 15:39 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] ext4/xfs: add page refcount helper Alex Sierra
2021-10-14 16:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-14 16:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-14 15:39 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct page refcount Alex Sierra
2021-10-14 16:52 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-14 17:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-14 17:35 ` Ralph Campbell
2021-10-14 18:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-14 20:57 ` Ralph Campbell
2021-10-15 3:45 ` Sierra Guiza, Alejandro (Alex)
2021-10-15 11:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-14 18:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-14 19:01 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-14 23:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-15 1:37 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-16 15:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-16 16:39 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-10-17 18:20 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-17 18:35 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-18 18:25 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-18 19:37 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-18 23:06 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-10-19 15:13 ` Joao Martins
2021-10-19 16:01 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2021-10-19 19:21 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-20 17:06 ` Joao Martins
2021-10-20 17:12 ` Dan Williams
2021-10-20 18:51 ` Joao Martins
2021-11-15 19:33 [PATCH v1 0/2] Remove extra ZONE_DEVICE " Alex Sierra
2021-11-15 19:33 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct " Alex Sierra
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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 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).