On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:40:37PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:30 PM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:15:55PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 12:04 PM <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Since last version [4] i added the extra bits needed for the change_pte > > > > optimization (which is a KSM thing). Here i am not posting users of > > > > this, they will be posted to the appropriate sub-systems (KVM, GPU, > > > > RDMA, ...) once this serie get upstream. If you want to look at users > > > > of this see [5] [6]. If this gets in 5.1 then i will be submitting > > > > those users for 5.2 (including KVM if KVM folks feel comfortable with > > > > it). > > > > > > The users look small and straightforward. Why not await acks and > > > reviewed-by's for the users like a typical upstream submission and > > > merge them together? Is all of the functionality of this > > > infrastructure consumed by the proposed users? Last time I checked it > > > was only a subset. > > > > Yes pretty much all is use, the unuse case is SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR > > vs UNMAP. Both of which i intend to use. The RDMA folks already ack > > the patches IIRC, so did radeon and amdgpu. I believe the i915 folks > > were ok with it too. I do not want to merge things through Andrew > > for all of this we discussed that in the past, merge mm bits through > > Andrew in one release and bits that use things in the next release. > > Ok, I was trying to find the links to the acks on the mailing list, > those references would address my concerns. I see no reason to rush > SOFT_DIRTY and CLEAR ahead of the upstream user. I intend to post user for those in next couple weeks for 5.2 HMM bits. So user for this (CLEAR/UNMAP/SOFTDIRTY) will definitly materialize in time for 5.2. ACKS AMD/RADEON https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/1/395 ACKS RDMA https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/6/1473 For KVM Andrea Arcangeli seems to like the whole idea to restore the change_pte optimization but i have not got ACK from Radim or Paolo, however given the small performance improvement figure i get with it i do not see while they would not ACK. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/18/1530 Cheers, Jérôme
