On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:22:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 08:11:57PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > This is awkward. I'd like it if we had a vfree() variant which called
> > put_page() instead of __free_pages(). I'd like it even more if we
> > used release_pag
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 04:39:06PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:21:44PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Actually, vfree() will work today; I cc'd you on a documentation update
> > to make it clear that this is permitted.
>
> vfree calls __free_pages, the i915 and a
On 22/09/2020 17:33, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
void *shmem_pin_map(struct file *file)
{
- const size_t n_pte = shmem_npte(file);
- pte_t *stack[32], **ptes, **mem;
Chris can comment how much he'd miss the 32 pag
On 22/09/2020 15:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 09:23:59AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
If I understood this sub-thread correctly, iterating and freeing the pages
via the vmapped ptes, so no need for a
shmem_read_mapping_page_gfp loop in shmem_unpin_map looks plausible to
On 22/09/2020 07:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 08:11:57PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
This is awkward. I'd like it if we had a vfree() variant which called
put_page() instead of __free_pages(). I'd like it even more if we
used release_pages() instead of our own loop t
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 06:37:21PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> void shmem_unpin_map(struct file *file, void *ptr)
> {
> + long i = shmem_npages(file);
> +
> mapping_clear_unevictable(file->f_mapping);
> - __shmem_unpin_map(file, ptr, shmem_npte(file));
> + vunmap(ptr);
> +
