[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 04/23] mm: devmap: refactor 1-based refcounting for ZONE_DEVICE pages
On 11/13/19 2:55 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:49 PM John Hubbard <> wrote:
>> On 11/13/19 2:00 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Ugh, when did all this HMM specific manipulation sneak into the
>>>> generic ZONE_DEVICE path? It used to be gated by pgmap type with its
>>>> own put_zone_device_private_page(). For example it's certainly
>>>> unnecessary and might be broken (would need to check) to call
>>>> mem_cgroup_uncharge() on a DAX page. ZONE_DEVICE users are not a
>>>> monolith and the HMM use case leaks pages into code paths that DAX
>>>> explicitly avoids.
>>> It's been this way for a while and I did not react previously,
>>> apologies for that. I think __ClearPageActive, __ClearPageWaiters, and
>>> mem_cgroup_uncharge, belong behind a device-private conditional. The
>>> history here is:
>>> Move some, but not all HMM specifics to hmm_devmem_free():
>>> 2fa147bdbf67 mm, dev_pagemap: Do not clear ->mapping on final put
>>> Remove the clearing of mapping since no upstream consumers needed it:
>>> b7a523109fb5 mm: don't clear ->mapping in hmm_devmem_free
>>> Add it back in once an upstream consumer arrived:
>>> 7ab0ad0e74f8 mm/hmm: fix ZONE_DEVICE anon page mapping reuse
>>> We're now almost entirely free of ->page_free callbacks except for
>>> that weird nouveau case, can that FIXME in nouveau_dmem_page_free()
>>> also result in killing the ->page_free() callback altogether? In the
>>> meantime I'm proposing a cleanup like this:
>> OK, assuming this is acceptable (no obvious problems jump out at me,
>> and we can also test it with HMM), then how would you like to proceed, as
>> far as patches go: add such a patch as part of this series here, or as a
>> stand-alone patch either before or after this series? Or something else?
>> And did you plan on sending it out as such?
> I think it makes sense to include it in your series since you're
> looking to refactor the implementation. I can send you one based on
> current linux-next as a lead-in cleanup before the refactor. Does that
> work for you?

That would be perfect!

>> Also, the diffs didn't quite make it through intact to my "git apply", so
>> I'm re-posting the diff in hopes that this time it survives:
> Apologies for that. For quick "how about this" patch examples, I just
> copy and paste into gmail and it sometimes clobbers it.

No problem at all, I do the same thing and *usually* it works. ha. And
as you say, it's good enough for discussions.

John Hubbard

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-14 00:00    [W:0.096 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site