(5/10/12 12:58 AM), Minchan Kim wrote:
On 05/10/2012 10:39 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
Hi Jerome,
-Original Message-
From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.gli...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:46 PM
To: Inki Dae
Cc: airl...@linux.ie; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org;
kyungmin.p...@samsung
let's assume that one application want to allocate user space memory
region using malloc() and then write something on the region. as you
may know, user space buffer doen't have real physical pages once
malloc() call so if user tries to access the region then page fault
handler would be triggered
(5/10/12 8:50 PM), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi KOSAKI,
On 05/11/2012 02:53 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
let's assume that one application want to allocate user space memory
region using malloc() and then write something on the region. as you
may know, user space buffer doen't have real phys
(5/10/12 11:01 PM), Jerome Glisse wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
wrote:
(5/10/12 8:50 PM), Minchan Kim wrote:
Hi KOSAKI,
On 05/11/2012 02:53 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
let's assume that one application want to allocate user space memory
region using malloc(
My point is this ioctl will be restricted to one user (Xserver if i
understand) and only this user, there is no fork in it so no need to
worry about fork, just setting the vma as locked will be enough.
But i don't want people reading this driver suddenly think that what
it's doing is ok, it's not
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
>>> My point is this ioctl will be restricted to one user (Xserver if i
>>> understand) and only this user, there is no fork in it so no need to
>>&g
> + npages = buf->size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
Why round down? usually we use round up.
> + down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> +
> + /*
> + * Basically, all the pages from get_user_pages() can not be not only
> + * migrated by CMA but also swapped out.
> + *
> +
(5/14/12 2:52 AM), Inki Dae wrote:
-Original Message-
From: KOSAKI Motohiro [mailto:kosaki.motoh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:33 PM
To: Inki Dae
Cc: airl...@linux.ie; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; j.gli...@gmail.com;
minc...@kernel.org; kyungmin.p...@samsung.com
Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it
can't take a lock. Otherwise, vmscan is getting a lot of confusing
because vmscan can't distinguish "can't take a lock temporary" and
"we've shrank all of i915 objects".
Signed-off-by
Hi,
sorry for the delay.
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:03:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it
>>> can't take a
(2011/07/12 19:06), Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:36:50 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for the delay.
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:03:22
(2011/07/13 16:41), Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:19:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
>> (2011/07/12 19:06), Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:36:50 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>
>> If you are thinking the shrinker protocol is too complicated, doc update
>> patch is really welcome.
>
> Slab shrinkers have a nasty, crappy interface and the shrink_slab()
> code is full of bugs. Rather that telling people to "update the
> documentation" because it's too complex, how about we
(10/7/13 5:18 PM), Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 04-10-13 16:42:19, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(10/4/13 4:31 PM), KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
(10/2/13 4:29 PM), Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 02-10-13 09:20:09, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:27:41PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
Hello,
In my
Hi,
sorry for the delay.
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 17:03:22 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro > jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it
>>> can
(2011/07/12 19:06), Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:36:50 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for the delay.
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:53:54 -0700, Keith Packard
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24
(2011/07/13 16:41), Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:19:24 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> (2011/07/12 19:06), Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 18:36:50 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro >> jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
&g
>> If you are thinking the shrinker protocol is too complicated, doc update
>> patch is really welcome.
>
> Slab shrinkers have a nasty, crappy interface and the shrink_slab()
> code is full of bugs. Rather that telling people to "update the
> documentation" because it's too complex, how about we
Now, i915_gem_inactive_shrink() should return -1 instead of 0 if it
can't take a lock. Otherwise, vmscan is getting a lot of confusing
because vmscan can't distinguish "can't take a lock temporary" and
"we've shrank all of i915 objects".
Signed-off-by
(5/10/12 12:58 AM), Minchan Kim wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 10:39 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
>
>> Hi Jerome,
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Jerome Glisse [mailto:j.glisse at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 11:46 PM
>>> To: Inki Dae
>>> Cc: airlied at linux.ie; dri-devel at lists.freed
>>> let's assume that one application want to allocate user space memory
>>> region using malloc() and then write something on the region. as you
>>> may know, user space buffer doen't have real physical pages once
>>> malloc() call so if user tries to access the region then page fault
>>> handler
(5/10/12 8:50 PM), Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi KOSAKI,
>
> On 05/11/2012 02:53 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
>>>>> let's assume that one application want to allocate user space memory
>>>>> region using malloc() and then write something on the region.
(5/10/12 11:01 PM), Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:51 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
>> (5/10/12 8:50 PM), Minchan Kim wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi KOSAKI,
>>>
>>> On 05/11/2012 02:53 AM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>
>>>
> My point is this ioctl will be restricted to one user (Xserver if i
> understand) and only this user, there is no fork in it so no need to
> worry about fork, just setting the vma as locked will be enough.
>
> But i don't want people reading this driver suddenly think that what
> it's doing is ok
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> wrote:
>>> My point is this ioctl will be restricted to one user (Xserver if i
>>> understand) and only this user, there is no fork in it so no need to
>>&g
> + ? ? ? npages = buf->size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
Why round down? usually we use round up.
> + ? ? ? down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> +
> + ? ? ? /*
> + ? ? ? ?* Basically, all the pages from get_user_pages() can not be not only
> + ? ? ? ?* migrated by CMA but also swapped out.
> + ? ? ? ?*
> + ? ? ? ?
(5/14/12 2:52 AM), Inki Dae wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: KOSAKI Motohiro [mailto:kosaki.motohiro at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:33 PM
>> To: Inki Dae
>> Cc: airlied at linux.ie; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org; j.gl
27 matches
Mail list logo
