On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:22:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 08:11:57PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > This is awkward. I'd like it if we had a vfree() variant which called > > put_page() instead of __free_pages(). I'd like it even more if we > > used release_pages() instead of our own loop that called put_page(). > > Note that we don't need a new vfree variant, we can do this manually if > we want, take a look at kernel/dma/remap.c. But I thought this code > intentionally doesn't want to do that to avoid locking in the memory > for the pages array. Maybe the i915 maintainers can clarify. Actually, vfree() will work today; I cc'd you on a documentation update to make it clear that this is permitted. >From my current experience with the i915 shmem code, I think that the i915 maintainers are experts at graphics, and are unfamiliar with the MM. There are a number of places where they do things the hard way. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
