[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] arm64/mm: Enable ZONE_DEVICE

On 04/08/2019 09:33 AM, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 03:11:00PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:47 AM Robin Murphy <> wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2019 06:04, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:42 PM Anshuman Khandual
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> On 04/03/2019 07:28 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>>>> [ +Dan, Jerome ]
>>>>>> On 03/04/2019 05:30, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>>>>> Arch implementation for functions which create or destroy vmemmap mapping
>>>>>>> (vmemmap_populate, vmemmap_free) can comprehend and allocate from inside
>>>>>>> device memory range through driver provided vmem_altmap structure which
>>>>>>> fulfils all requirements to enable ZONE_DEVICE on the platform. Hence just
>>>>>> ZONE_DEVICE is about more than just altmap support, no?
>>>>> Hot plugging the memory into a dev->numa_node's ZONE_DEVICE and initializing the
>>>>> struct pages for it has stand alone and self contained use case. The driver could
>>>>> just want to manage the memory itself but with struct pages either in the RAM or
>>>>> in the device memory range through struct vmem_altmap. The driver may not choose
>>>>> to opt for HMM, FS DAX, P2PDMA (use cases of ZONE_DEVICE) where it may have to
>>>>> map these pages into any user pagetable which would necessitate support for
>>>>> pte|pmd|pud_devmap.
>>>> What's left for ZONE_DEVICE if none of the above cases are used?
>>>>> Though I am still working towards getting HMM, FS DAX, P2PDMA enabled on arm64,
>>>>> IMHO ZONE_DEVICE is self contained and can be evaluated in itself.
>>>> I'm not convinced. What's the specific use case.
>>> The fundamental "roadmap" reason we've been doing this is to enable
>>> further NVDIMM/pmem development (libpmem/Qemu/etc.) on arm64. The fact
>>> that ZONE_DEVICE immediately opens the door to the various other stuff
>>> that the CCIX folks have interest in is a definite bonus, so it would
>>> certainly be preferable to get arm64 on par with the current state of
>>> things rather than try to subdivide the scope further.
>>> I started working on this from the ZONE_DEVICE end, but got bogged down
>>> in trying to replace my copied-from-s390 dummy hot-remove implementation
>>> with something proper. Anshuman has stepped in to help with hot-remove
>>> (since we also have cloud folks wanting that for its own sake), so is
>>> effectively coming at the problem from the opposite direction, and I'll
>>> be the first to admit that we've not managed the greatest job of meeting
>>> in the middle and coordinating our upstream story; sorry about that :)
>>> Let me freshen up my devmap patches and post them properly, since that
>>> discussion doesn't have to happen in the context of hot-remove; they're
>>> effectively just parallel dependencies for ZONE_DEVICE.
>> Sounds good. It's also worth noting that Ira's recent patches for
>> supporting get_user_pages_fast() for "longterm" pins relies on
>> PTE_DEVMAP to determine when fast-GUP is safe to proceed, or whether
>> it needs to fall back to slow-GUP. So it really is the case that
>> "devmap" support is an assumption for ZONE_DEVICE.
> Could you cc me on the patches when you post?

Sure will do.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-08 08:04    [W:0.083 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site