lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/10] HMM updates for 5.1
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:42:00AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:33:57AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:12:49AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 12:58:02 -0400 Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > > Also, the discussion regarding [07/10] is substantial and is ongoing so
> > > > > please let's push along wth that.
> > > >
> > > > I can move it as last patch in the serie but it is needed for ODP RDMA
> > > > convertion too. Otherwise i will just move that code into the ODP RDMA
> > > > code and will have to move it again into HMM code once i am done with
> > > > the nouveau changes and in the meantime i expect other driver will want
> > > > to use this 2 helpers too.
> > >
> > > I still hold out hope that we can find a way to have productive
> > > discussions about the implementation of this infrastructure.
> > > Threatening to move the code elsewhere to bypass the feedback is not
> > > productive.
> >
> > I am not threatening anything that code is in ODP _today_ with that
> > patchset i was factering it out so that i could also use it in nouveau.
> > nouveau is built in such way that right now i can not use it directly.
> > But i wanted to factor out now in hope that i can get the nouveau
> > changes in 5.2 and then convert nouveau in 5.3.
> >
> > So when i said that code will be in ODP it just means that instead of
> > removing it from ODP i will keep it there and it will just delay more
> > code sharing for everyone.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that the code sharing for everyone is
> moving the implementation closer to canonical kernel code and use
> existing infrastructure. For example, I look at 'struct hmm_range' and
> see nothing hmm specific in it. I think we can make that generic and
> not build up more apis and data structures in the "hmm" namespace.

Right now i am trying to unify driver for device that have can support
the mmu notifier approach through HMM. Unify to a superset of driver
that can not abide by mmu notifier is on my todo list like i said but
it comes after. I do not want to make the big jump in just one go. So
i doing thing under HMM and thus in HMM namespace, but once i tackle
the larger set i will move to generic namespace what make sense.

This exact approach did happen several time already in the kernel. In
the GPU sub-system we did it several time. First do something for couple
devices that are very similar then grow to a bigger set of devices and
generalise along the way.

So i do not see what is the problem of me repeating that same pattern
here again. Do something for a smaller set before tackling it on for
a bigger set.

Cheers,
Jérôme

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-19 20:06    [W:0.080 / U:1.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site