On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 05:59:26PM +0100, Simona Vetter wrote: > So one aspect where I don't like the pgmap->owner approach much is that > it's a big thing to get right, and it feels a bit to me that we don't yet > know the right questions. Well, I would say it isn't really complete yet. No driver has yet attempted to use a private interconnect with these scheme. Probably it needs more work. > A bit related is that we'll have to do some driver-specific migration > after hmm_range_fault anyway for allocation policies. With coherent > interconnect that'd be up to numactl, but for driver private it's all up > to the driver. And once we have that, we can also migrate memory around > that's misplaced for functional and not just performance reasons. Are you sure? This doesn't seem to what any hmm_range_fault() user should be doing. hmm_range_fault() is to help mirror the page table to a secondary, that is all. Migration policy shouldn't be part of it, just mirroring doesn't necessarily mean any access was performed, for instance. And mirroring doesn't track any access done by non-faulting cases either. > The plan I discussed with Thomas a while back at least for gpus was to > have that as a drm_devpagemap library, I would not be happy to see this. Please improve pagemap directly if you think you need more things. > which would have a common owner (or > maybe per driver or so as Thomas suggested). Neither really match the expected design here. The owner should be entirely based on reachability. Devices that cannot reach each other directly should have different owners. > But upfront speccing all this out doesn't seem like a good idea to, > because I honestly don't know what we all need. This is why it is currently just void *owner :) Jason
