Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Vetter <> | Date | Fri, 16 Aug 2019 18:36:52 +0200 | Subject | Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/5] kernel.h: Add non_block_start/end() |
| |
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 04:11:34PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Also, aside from this patch (which is prep for the next) and some > > simple reordering conflicts they're all independent. So if there's no > > way to paint this bikeshed here (technicolor perhaps?) then I'd like > > to get at least the others considered. > > Sure, I think for conflict avoidance reasons I'm probably taking > mmu_notifier stuff via hmm.git, so: > > - Andrew had a minor remark on #1, I am ambivalent and would take it > as-is. Your decision if you want to respin.
I like mine better, see also the reply from Ralph Campbell.
> - #2/#3 is this issue, I would stand by the preempt_disable/etc path > Our situation matches yours, debug tests run lockdep/etc.
Since Michal requested the current flavour I think we need spin a bit more on these here. I guess I'll just rebase them to the end so they're not holding up the others.
> - #4 I like a lot, except the map should enclose range_end too, > this can be done after the mm_has_notifiers inside the > __mmu_notifier function
To make sure I get this right: The same lockdep context, but also wrapped around invalidate_range_end? From my understanding of pte zapping that makes sense, but I'm definitely not well-versed enough for that.
> Can you respin?
Will do.
> I will propose preloading the map in another patch > - #5 is already applied in -rc
Yup, I'll drop that one.
Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
| |