lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 03/10] userfaultfd/shmem: support UFFDIO_CONTINUE for shmem
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 1:42 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:29:14PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:03 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 09:57:16AM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > I'd prefer to keep them separate, as they are not tiny patches (they
> > > > are roughly +200/-150 each). And, they really are quite independent -
> > > > at least in the sense that I can reorder them via rebase with no
> > > > conflicts, and the code builds at each commit in either orientation. I
> > > > think this implies they're easier to review separately, rather than
> > > > squashed.
> > > >
> > > > I don't have a strong feeling about the order. I slightly prefer
> > > > swapping them compared to this v4 series: first introduce minor
> > > > faults, then introduce CONTINUE.
> > > >
> > > > Since Peter also has no strong opinion, and Hugh it sounds like you
> > > > prefer it the other way around, I'll swap them as we had in some
> > > > previous version of this series: first introduce minor faults, then
> > > > introduce CONTINUE.
> > >
> > > Yes I have no strong opinion, but that's probably the least I prefer. :-)
> > >
> > > Because you'll declare UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM and enable this feature without
> > > the feature being completely implemented (without UFFDIO_CONTINUE, it's not
> > > complete since no one will be able to resolve that minor fault).
> > >
> > > Not a big deal anyway, but since we're at it... Basically I think three things
> > > to do for minor shmem support:
> > >
> > > (1) UFFDIO_CONTINUE (resolving path)
> > > (2) Handle fault path for shmem minor fault (faulting path)
> > > (3) Enablement of UFFD_FEATURE_MINOR_SHMEM (from which point, user can detect
> > > and enable it)
> > >
> > > I have no preference on how you'd like to merge these steps (right now you did
> > > 1 first, then 2+3 later; or as Hugh suggested do 1+2+3 together), but I'd still
> > > hope item 3 should always be the last, if possible...
> >
> > In that case, I'll split the patch which adds the faulting path in
> > two: add the faulting path hook and registration mode, and then in a
> > separate commit advertise the feature flag as available.
> >
> > Then I'll order them like so, which I think is the order Hugh finds
> > more natural:
> > 1. MInor fault registration / faulting path
> > 2. CONTINUE ioctl to resolve the faults
> > 3. Advertise the feature as supported
> >
> > Sound okay?
>
> Good to me, thanks Axel.

Okay.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-27 23:00    [W:0.038 / U:7.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site