On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 03:52:53PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > > > When migrating anonymous memory from system memory to device memory > > CPU pte are replaced with special HMM swap entry so that page fault, > > get user page (gup), fork, ... are properly redirected to HMM helpers. > > > > This patch only add the new swap type entry and hooks HMM helpers > > functions inside the page fault and fork code path. > > > > Changed since v1: > > But the subject line says this work is v11 This is the v11 of the whole patchset. But this particular patch only add 2 different version (v2 at the end of subject line). I do not bump version of patches each time i rebase this seems pointless. > > diff --git a/include/linux/hmm.h b/include/linux/hmm.h > > index 4bc132a..7c66513 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/hmm.h > > +++ b/include/linux/hmm.h > > I find no hmm.h in 4.3-rc6 This patchset depends on patchset i posted before this one and that the introduction mail reference namely : https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/21/739 [...] > > +static inline int hmm_mm_fork(struct mm_struct *src_mm, > > + struct mm_struct *dst_mm, > > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, > > + pmd_t *dst_pmd, > > + unsigned long start, > > + unsigned long end) > > +{ > > + BUG(); > > s/BUG/BUILD_BUG/ ? I use BUG(); to keep bisectability working. The core of this function is implemented in a latter patch but this function is reference in this one. [...] > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HMM > > +static inline swp_entry_t make_hmm_entry(void) > > +{ > > + /* We do not store anything inside the CPU page table entry (pte). */ > > pte is clear enough, no? Yes i will remove this redundancy. [...] > > +static inline int is_hmm_entry_poisonous(swp_entry_t entry) > > +{ > > + return (swp_type(entry) == SWP_HMM) && (swp_offset(entry) == 2); > > +} > > So SWP_HMM_LOCKED and SWP_HMM_POISON should be defined. Good point. [...] > > @@ -894,9 +895,11 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm, > > pte_t *orig_src_pte, *orig_dst_pte; > > pte_t *src_pte, *dst_pte; > > spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl; > > + unsigned cnt_hmm_entry = 0; > > s/cnt_hmm_entry/hmm_ptes/ ? > Maybe hmm_swap_ptes is even better name in this context. [...] > > + if (cnt_hmm_entry) { > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = hmm_mm_fork(src_mm, dst_mm, dst_vma, > > + dst_pmd, start, end); > > Given start, s/end/addr/, no? No, end is the right upper limit here. Cheers, Jérôme -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>