[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] resource: find_next_iomem_res() improvements
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 3:07 PM, Dan Williams <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 3:01 PM Andrew Morton <> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 21:56:43 +0000 Nadav Amit <> wrote:
>>>> ...and is constant for the life of the device and all subsequent mappings.
>>>>> Perhaps you want to cache the cachability-mode in vma->vm_page_prot (which I
>>>>> see being done in quite a few cases), but I don’t know the code well enough
>>>>> to be certain that every vma should have a single protection and that it
>>>>> should not change afterwards.
>>>> No, I'm thinking this would naturally fit as a property hanging off a
>>>> 'struct dax_device', and then create a version of vmf_insert_mixed()
>>>> and vmf_insert_pfn_pmd() that bypass track_pfn_insert() to insert that
>>>> saved value.
>>> Thanks for the detailed explanation. I’ll give it a try (the moment I find
>>> some free time). I still think that patch 2/3 is beneficial, but based on
>>> your feedback, patch 3/3 should be dropped.
>> It has been a while. What should we do with
>> resource-fix-locking-in-find_next_iomem_res.patch
> This one looks obviously correct to me, you can add:
> Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <>
>> resource-avoid-unnecessary-lookups-in-find_next_iomem_res.patch
> This one is a good bug report that we need to go fix pgprot lookups
> for dax, but I don't think we need to increase the trickiness of the
> core resource lookup code in the meantime.

I think that traversing big parts of the tree that are known to be
irrelevant is wasteful no matter what, and this code is used in other cases.

I don’t think the new code is so tricky - can you point to the part of the
code that you find tricky?

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-17 00:14    [W:0.065 / U:2.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site