On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 01:42:17PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 05:09:44PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > > > An optional callback is a lot less scary to me here (or redoing
> > > > hmm_range_fault or whacking the migration helpers a few times) looks a
> > > > lot
> > >
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:47:57AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:38:58PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
>
> > > The pgmap->owner doesn't *have* to fixed, certainly during early boot
> > > before
> > > you hand out any page references it can be changed. I wouldn't be
> >
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 01:21:23PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:32:23PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > This series supports three case:
> > >
> > > 1) pgmap->owner == range->dev_private_owner
> > > This is "driver private fast interconnect" in this case HMM
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 09:23:17AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:50:27AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:47:57AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:38:58PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > The pgmap->own
On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 15:16 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 03:29:48PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 09:26 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:32:32AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > 1) Existing use
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 03:29:48PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 09:26 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:32:32AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 1) Existing users would never use the callback. They can still rely
> > > on
> > > th
On Tue, 2025-02-04 at 09:26 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:32:32AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >
>
> > 1) Existing users would never use the callback. They can still rely
> > on
> > the owner check, only if that fails we check for callback
> > existence.
> > 2) By
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:32:32AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > I would not be happy to see this. Please improve pagemap directly if
> > you think you need more things.
>
> These are mainly helpers to migrate and populate a range of cpu memory
> space (struct mm_struct) with GPU device_priva
On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 11:08 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:59:26PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
>
> > So one aspect where I don't like the pgmap->owner approach much is
> > that
> > it's a big thing to get right, and it feels a bit to me that we
> > don't yet
> > know th
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:59:26PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> So one aspect where I don't like the pgmap->owner approach much is that
> it's a big thing to get right, and it feels a bit to me that we don't yet
> know the right questions.
Well, I would say it isn't really complete yet. No drive
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 05:09:44PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > You could also use an integer instead of a pointer to indicate the
> > cluster of interconnect, I think there are many options..
>
> Hm yeah I guess an integer allocater of the atomic_inc kind plus "surely
> 32bit is enough" could
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:50:27AM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:47:57AM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:38:58PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> >
> > > > The pgmap->owner doesn't *have* to fixed, certainly during early boot
> > > > before
> >
On Wed, 2025-01-29 at 09:47 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:38:58PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
>
> > > The pgmap->owner doesn't *have* to fixed, certainly during early
> > > boot before
> > > you hand out any page references it can be changed. I wouldn't be
> > > surpri
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 02:38:58PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > The pgmap->owner doesn't *have* to fixed, certainly during early boot before
> > you hand out any page references it can be changed. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if this is useful to some requirements to build up the
> > private int
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:32:23PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > This series supports three case:
> >
> > 1) pgmap->owner == range->dev_private_owner
> > This is "driver private fast interconnect" in this case HMM
> > should
> > immediately return the page. The calling driver underst
On Tue, 2025-01-28 at 11:16 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On Tue, 2025-01-28 at 09:20 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > >
> > > > How would the pgmap devi
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Tue, 2025-01-28 at 09:20 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >
> > > How would the pgmap device know whether P2P is actually possible
> > > without knowing the c
On Tue, 2025-01-28 at 09:20 -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>
> > How would the pgmap device know whether P2P is actually possible
> > without knowing the client device, (like calling
> > pci_p2pdma_distance)
> > and also if looking
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 09:51:52AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> How would the pgmap device know whether P2P is actually possible
> without knowing the client device, (like calling pci_p2pdma_distance)
> and also if looking into access control, whether it is allowed?
The DMA API will do this,
Hi, Jonatan
On Sun, 2024-12-01 at 12:36 +0200, Yonatan Maman wrote:
> From: Yonatan Maman
>
> hmm_range_fault() by default triggered a page fault on device private
> when HMM_PFN_REQ_FAULT flag was set. pages, migrating them to RAM. In
> some
> cases, such as with RDMA devices, the migration ov
20 matches
Mail list logo
