Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751922AbbFYW5r (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:57:47 -0400 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:11807 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751379AbbFYW5j (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:57:39 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:57:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:57:29 -0700 From: Mark Hairgrove To: "j.glisse@gmail.com" CC: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Linus Torvalds , "joro@8bytes.org" , Mel Gorman , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Larry Woodman , Rik van Riel , Dave Airlie , Brendan Conoboy , Joe Donohue , Duncan Poole , Sherry Cheung , Subhash Gutti , John Hubbard , Lucien Dunning , Cameron Buschardt , Arvind Gopalakrishnan , Haggai Eran , Shachar Raindel , Liran Liss , Roland Dreier , Ben Sander , Greg Stoner , John Bridgman , Michael Mantor , Paul Blinzer , Laurent Morichetti , Alexander Deucher , Oded Gabbay , =?ISO-8859-15?Q?J=E9r=F4me_Glisse?= , Jatin Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/36] HMM: add HMM page table v2. In-Reply-To: <1432236705-4209-7-git-send-email-j.glisse@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1432236705-4209-1-git-send-email-j.glisse@gmail.com> <1432236705-4209-7-git-send-email-j.glisse@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) X-NVConfidentiality: public MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [172.17.162.12] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL103.nvidia.com (172.20.187.11) To HQMAIL108.nvidia.com (172.18.146.13) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-1316507227-1435273057=:28614" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3627 Lines: 88 --8323329-1316507227-1435273057=:28614 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 21 May 2015, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote: > From: Jérôme Glisse > > [...] > + > +void hmm_pt_iter_init(struct hmm_pt_iter *iter); > +void hmm_pt_iter_fini(struct hmm_pt_iter *iter, struct hmm_pt *pt); > +unsigned long hmm_pt_iter_next(struct hmm_pt_iter *iter, > + struct hmm_pt *pt, > + unsigned long addr, > + unsigned long end); > +dma_addr_t *hmm_pt_iter_update(struct hmm_pt_iter *iter, > + struct hmm_pt *pt, > + unsigned long addr); > +dma_addr_t *hmm_pt_iter_fault(struct hmm_pt_iter *iter, > + struct hmm_pt *pt, > + unsigned long addr); I've got a few more thoughts on hmm_pt_iter after looking at some of the later patches. I think I've convinced myself that this patch functionally works as-is, but I've got some suggestions and questions about the design. Right now there are these three major functions: 1) hmm_pt_iter_update(addr) - Returns the hmm_pte * for addr, or NULL if none exists. 2) hmm_pt_iter_fault(addr) - Returns the hmm_pte * for addr, allocating a new one if none exists. 3) hmm_pt_iter_next(addr, end) - Returns the next possibly-valid address. The caller must use hmm_pt_iter_update to check if there really is an hmm_pte there. In my view, there are two sources of confusion here: - Naming. "update" shares a name with the HMM mirror callback, and it also implies that the page tables are "updated" as a result of the call. "fault" likewise implies that the function handles a fault in some way. Neither of these implications are true. - hmm_pt_iter_next and hmm_pt_iter_update have some overlapping functionality when compared to traditional iterators, requiring the callers to all do this sort of thing: hmm_pte = hmm_pt_iter_update(&iter, &mirror->pt, addr); if (!hmm_pte) { addr = hmm_pt_iter_next(&iter, &mirror->pt, addr, event->end); continue; } Wouldn't it be more efficient and simpler to have _next do all the iteration internally so it always returns the next valid entry? Then you could combine _update and _next into a single function, something along these lines (which also addresses the naming concern): void hmm_pt_iter_init(iter, pt, start, end); unsigned long hmm_pt_iter_next(iter, hmm_pte *); unsigned long hmm_pt_iter_next_alloc(iter, hmm_pte *); hmm_pt_iter_next would return the address and ptep of the next valid entry, taking the place of the existing _update and _next functions. hmm_pt_iter_next_alloc takes the place of _fault. Also, since the _next functions don't take in an address, the iterator doesn't have to handle the input addr being different from iter->cur. The logical extent of this is a callback approach like mm_walk. That would be nice because the caller wouldn't have to worry about making the _init and _fini calls. I assume you didn't go with this approach because sometimes you need to iterate over hmm_pt while doing an mm_walk itself, and you didn't want the overhead of nesting those? Finally, another minor thing I just noticed: shouldn't hmm_pt.h include since it uses all of the clear/set/test bit APIs? --8323329-1316507227-1435273057=:28614-- -- 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/