On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 08:12 -0800, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-11-04 at 15:07 -0800, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > > We > > > > have > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc6/source/include/linux/int > > > > erval_tree_generic.h#L24 > > > > > > > > to relate to. Now GPUVM can't use the generic version since it > > > > needs > > > > u64 intervals. These trees need unsigned long only so it should > > > > be > > > > ok. > > > > And safe removal, isn't that possible to implement without the > > > > list? > > > > Then it's really only the linked list as a perf optimization I > > > > guess, > > > > but we have a lot of those pending... > > > > > > > > > > See my other comments. Let me just follow on using a maple tree > > > and > > > perhaps a > > > list isn't required if we use that. Will have definite answer in > > > my > > > next rev. > > > > Note, though, that IIRC maple trees do not allow overlapping > > ranges, > > and If we need to support multiple svm VMAs with different offsets, > > like Christian suggests, we will likely have overlapping ranges for > > the > > range tree but not for the notifier tree. > > > > I don't think that is how overlapping ranges would look though. We'd > have multiple GPU VMAs / GPU ptes to pointing the same SVM range. The > SVM ranges speak in the CPU address space - we'd attach multiple GPU > VMAs to the SVM so in the notifier we can find all the GPU pages to > invalidate. At least I think it would look this way - can cross that > bridge if / when we get to it though. > > > Thinking a bit more about this, my concern is mostly around > > needlessly > > instantiating new interval trees instead of using the generic > > instantiation, because that is clearly against recommended > > practice. > > > > Ok, so with this statement then I think both the interval trees in > GPU > VM / xe_range_fence are going again the recommended practice too? No, they work in gpu virtual address space with u64 integers, whereas these are cpu virtual address space with unsigned long, which is also the type used for the generic instantiation. (I think maple trees also use unsigned long). At least for the range fences that was the motivation for a separate instantiation. Not sure what the reasoning was with gpuvm. /Thomas
