lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] HMM updates for 5.1
    On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:18:26AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
    > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:13:40PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
    > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 12:05 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:42:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
    > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:33:57AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
    > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:12:49AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > > > > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:58:02 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    > > >
    > > > Right now i am trying to unify driver for device that have can support
    > > > the mmu notifier approach through HMM. Unify to a superset of driver
    > > > that can not abide by mmu notifier is on my todo list like i said but
    > > > it comes after. I do not want to make the big jump in just one go. So
    > > > i doing thing under HMM and thus in HMM namespace, but once i tackle
    > > > the larger set i will move to generic namespace what make sense.
    > > >
    > > > This exact approach did happen several time already in the kernel. In
    > > > the GPU sub-system we did it several time. First do something for couple
    > > > devices that are very similar then grow to a bigger set of devices and
    > > > generalise along the way.
    > > >
    > > > So i do not see what is the problem of me repeating that same pattern
    > > > here again. Do something for a smaller set before tackling it on for
    > > > a bigger set.
    > >
    > > All of that is fine, but when I asked about the ultimate trajectory
    > > that replaces hmm_range_dma_map() with an updated / HMM-aware GUP
    > > implementation, the response was that hmm_range_dma_map() is here to
    > > stay. The issue is not with forking off a small side effort, it's the
    > > plan to absorb that capability into a common implementation across
    > > non-HMM drivers where possible.
    >
    > Just to get on the record in this thread.
    >
    > +1
    >
    > I think having an interface which handles the MMU notifier stuff for drivers is
    > awesome but we need to agree that the trajectory is to help more drivers if
    > possible.
    >

    Yes and i want to get there step by step not just in one giant leap.
    It seems Dan would like to see this all one step and i believe this
    is too risky and make the patchset much bigger and harder to review.

    Cheers,
    Jérôme

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-03-19 23:25    [W:4.373 / U:0.108 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site