On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:04:09 +0100 Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 23 August 2017 at 23:34, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:31:28 +0300 Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> This patch has been floating around for a while now Acked and without > >> further comments. It is blocking us from merging huge page support to > >> drm/i915. > >> > >> Would you mind merging it, or prodding the right people to get it in? > >> > >> Regards, Joonas > >> > >> On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 19:34 +0100, Matthew Auld wrote: > >> > We are planning to use our own tmpfs mnt in i915 in place of the > >> > shm_mnt, such that we can control the mount options, in particular > >> > huge=, which we require to support huge-gtt-pages. So rather than roll > >> > our own version of __shmem_file_setup, it would be preferred if we could > >> > just give shmem our mnt, and let it do the rest. > > > > hm, it's a bit odd. I'm having trouble locating the code which handles > > huge=within_size (and any other options?). > > See here https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/172771/, currently we > only care about huge=within_size. > > > What other approaches were considered? > > We also tried https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/156528/, where > it was suggested that we mount our own tmpfs instance. > > Following from that we now have our own tmps mnt mounted with > huge=within_size. With this patch we avoid having to roll our own > __shmem_file_setup like in > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/163024/. > > > Was it not feasible to add i915-specific mount options to > > mm/shmem.c (for example?). > > Hmm, I think within_size should suffice for our needs. hm, ok, well, unless someone can think of something cleaner, please add my ack and include it in the appropriate drm tree. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
