On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 05:44:38PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 09:28:29AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > kmap_atomic() is always preferred over kmap()/kmap_thread(). > > kmap_atomic() is _much_ more lightweight since its TLB invalidation is > > always CPU-local and never broadcast. > > > > So, basically, unless you *must* sleep while the mapping is in place, > > kmap_atomic() is preferred. > > But kmap_atomic() disables preemption, so the _ideal_ interface would map > it only locally, then on preemption make it global. I don't even know > if that _can_ be done. But this email makes it seem like kmap_atomic() > has no downsides. And that is IIUC what Thomas was trying to solve. Also, Linus brought up that kmap_atomic() has quirks in nesting.[1] >From what I can see all of these discussions support the need to have something between kmap() and kmap_atomic(). However, the reason behind converting call sites to kmap_thread() are different between Thomas' patch set and mine. Both require more kmap granularity. However, they do so with different reasons and underlying implementations but with the _same_ resulting semantics; a thread local mapping which is preemptable.[2] Therefore they each focus on changing different call sites. While this patch set is huge I think it serves a valuable purpose to identify a large number of call sites which are candidates for this new semantic. Ira [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgbmwsTOKs23Z=71EBTrULoeaH2U3TNqT2atHEWvkBKdw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] It is important to note these implementations are not incompatible with each other. So I don't see yet another 'kmap_something()' being required. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
