Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/hmm: make full use of walk_page_range()
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
CC:     "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>
References: <20190723233016.26403-1-rcampbell@nvidia.com>
 <20190723233016.26403-3-rcampbell@nvidia.com> <20190724065146.GA2061@lst.de>
 <20190724115338.GA30264@mellanox.com>
From:   Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <098df586-0713-1aaa-e546-5dc39ec30341@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:50:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190724115338.GA30264@mellanox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 7/24/19 4:53 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 08:51:46AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 04:30:16PM -0700, Ralph Campbell wrote:
>>> hmm_range_snapshot() and hmm_range_fault() both call find_vma() and
>>> walk_page_range() in a loop. This is unnecessary duplication since
>>> walk_page_range() calls find_vma() in a loop already.
>>> Simplify hmm_range_snapshot() and hmm_range_fault() by defining a
>>> walk_test() callback function to filter unhandled vmas.
>>
>> I like the approach a lot!
>>
>> But we really need to sort out the duplication between hmm_range_fault
>> and hmm_range_snapshot first, as they are basically the same code.  I
>> have patches here:
>>
>> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/a34ccd30ee8a8a3111d9e91711c12901ed7dea74
>>
>> http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/commitdiff/81f442ebac7170815af7770a1efa9c4ab662137e
> 
> Yeah, that is a straightforward improvement, maybe Ralph should grab
> these two as part of his series?

Sure, no problem.
I'll add them in v2 when I fix the other issues in the series.

>> That being said we don't really have any users for the snapshot mode
>> or non-blocking faults, and I don't see any in the immediate pipeline
>> either.
> 
> If this code was production ready I'd use it in ODP right away.
> 
> When we first create a ODP MR we'd want to snapshot to pre-load the
> NIC tables with something other than page fault, but not fault
> anything.
> 
> This would be a big performance improvement for ODP.
> 
> Jason
>