Just cc'ing some folks. I've also added another question. On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 at 21:08, Maíra Canal <mcanal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Adding another point to this discussion, would it make sense to somehow > create a generic structure that all drivers, including shmem drivers, > could use it? > > Best Regards, > - Maíra > > On 2/7/24 03:56, Dave Airlie wrote: > > I'm just looking over the userptr handling in both drivers, and of > > course they've chosen different ways to represent things. Again this > > is a divergence that is just going to get more annoying over time and > > eventually I'd like to make hmm/userptr driver independent as much as > > possible, so we get consistent semantics in userspace. > > > > AFAICS the main difference is that amdgpu builds the userptr handling > > inside a GEM object in the kernel, whereas xe doesn't bother creating > > a holding object and just handles things directly in the VM binding > > code. > > > > Is this just different thinking at different times here? > > like since we have VM BIND in xe, it made sense not to bother creating > > a gem object for userptrs? > > or is there some other advantages to going one way or the other? > > So the current AMD code uses hmm to do userptr work, but xe doesn't again, why isn't xe using hmm here, I thought I remembered scenarios where plain mmu_notifiers weren't sufficient. Dave.
