lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [HMM v17 00/14] HMM (Heterogeneous Memory Management) v17
    On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Andrew Morton
    <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
    > On Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:19:15 +1100 Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 05:52:07PM -0500, J__r__me Glisse wrote:
    >> > Cliff note: HMM offers 2 things (each standing on its own). First
    >> > it allows to use device memory transparently inside any process
    >> > without any modifications to process program code. Second it allows
    >> > to mirror process address space on a device.
    >> >
    >> > Change since v16:
    >> > - move HMM unaddressable device memory to its own radix tree and
    >> > thus find_dev_pagemap() will no longer return HMM dev_pagemap
    >> > - rename HMM migration helper (drop the prefix) and make them
    >> > completely independent of HMM
    >> >
    >> > Migration can now be use to implement thing like multi-threaded
    >> > copy or make use of specific memory allocator for destination
    >> > memory.
    >> >
    >> > Work is under way to use this feature inside nouveau (the upstream
    >> > open source driver for NVidia GPU) either 411 or 4.12 timeframe.
    >> > But this patchset have been otherwise tested with the close source
    >> > driver for NVidia GPU and thus we are confident it works and allow
    >> > to use the hardware for seamless interaction between CPU and GPU
    >> > in common address space of a process.
    >> >
    >> > I also discussed the features with other company and i am confident
    >> > it can be use on other, yet, unrelease hardware.
    >> >
    >> > Please condiser applying for 4.11
    >> >
    >>
    >> Andrew, do we expect to get this in 4.11/4.12? Just curious.
    >>
    >
    > I'll be taking a serious look after -rc1.
    >
    > The lack of reviewed-by, acked-by and tested-by is a concern. It's
    > rather odd for a patchset in the 17th revision! What's up with that?
    >
    > Have you reviewed or tested the patches?

    I reviewed v14/15 of the patches. Aneesh reviewed some versions as
    well. I know a few people who tested a small subset of the patches,
    I'll get them to report back as well. I think John Hubbard has been
    testing iterations as well. CC'ing other interested people as well

    Balbir

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-02-22 09:27    [W:3.092 / U:0.484 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site