Am 2021-08-17 um 1:50 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 03:00:49PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote: >> Am 2021-08-15 um 11:40 a.m. schrieb Christoph Hellwig: >>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 01:31:45AM -0500, Alex Sierra wrote: >>>> Add MEMORY_DEVICE_GENERIC case to free_zone_device_page callback. >>>> Device generic type memory case is now able to free its pages properly. >>> How is this going to work for the two existing MEMORY_DEVICE_GENERIC >>> that now change behavior? And which don't have a ->page_free callback >>> at all? >> That's a good catch. Existing drivers shouldn't need a page_free >> callback if they didn't have one before. That means we need to add a >> NULL-pointer check in free_device_page. > Also the other state clearing (__ClearPageWaiters/mem_cgroup_uncharge/ > ->mapping = NULL). > > In many ways this seems like you want to bring back the DEVICE_PUBLIC > pgmap type that was removed a while ago due to the lack of users > instead of overloading the generic type. I think so. I'm not clear about how DEVICE_PUBLIC differed from what DEVICE_GENERIC is today. As I understand it, DEVICE_PUBLIC was removed because it was unused and also known to be broken in some ways. DEVICE_GENERIC seemed close enough to what we need, other than not being supported in the migration helpers. Would you see benefit in re-introducing DEVICE_PUBLIC as a distinct memory type from DEVICE_GENERIC? What would be the benefits of making that distinction? Thanks, Felix
