Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:18:32 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, jglisse@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        aarcange@redhat.com, riel@redhat.com, airlied@redhat.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Cameron Buschardt <cabuschardt@nvidia.com>,
        Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@nvidia.com>,
        Geoffrey Gerfin <ggerfin@nvidia.com>,
        John McKenna <jmckenna@nvidia.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Interacting with coherent memory on external devices
Message-ID: <20150422131832.GU5561@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <20150421214445.GA29093@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504211839120.6294@gentwo.org>
 <20150422000538.GB6046@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504211942040.6294@gentwo.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1504211942040.6294@gentwo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1451
Lines: 32

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 07:50:02PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote:

[ . . . ]

> > Paul is working on a platform that is more advance that the one HMM try
> > to address and i believe the x86 platform will not have functionality
> > such a CAPI, at least it is not part of any roadmap i know about for
> > x86.
> 
> We will be one of the first users of Paul's Platform. Please do not do
> crazy stuff but give us a sane solution where we can control the
> hardware. No strange VM hooks that automatically move stuff back and forth
> please. If you do this we will have to disable them anyways because they
> would interfere with our needs to have the code not be disturbed by random
> OS noise. We need detailed control as to when and how we move data.

I completely agree that some critically important use cases, such as
yours, will absolutely require that the application explicitly choose
memory placement and have the memory stay there.

Requirement 2 was supposed to be getting at this by saying "explicitly
or implicitly allocated", with the "explicitly" calling out your use
case.  How should I reword this to better bring this out?

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/