From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A566CC0651F for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B8B2083B for ; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 20:54:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727461AbfGDUyy (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:54:54 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:49970 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726900AbfGDUyx (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jul 2019 16:54:53 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A517928; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.123] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B922D3F738; Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Devmap cleanups + arm64 support To: Jason Gunthorpe , Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mark Rutland , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "catalin.marinas@arm.com" , "anshuman.khandual@arm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Michal Hocko , Dan Williams References: <20190626073533.GA24199@infradead.org> <20190626123139.GB20635@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190626153829.GA22138@infradead.org> <20190626154532.GA3088@mellanox.com> <20190626203551.4612e12be27be3458801703b@linux-foundation.org> <20190704115324.c9780d01ef6938ab41403bf9@linux-foundation.org> <20190704195934.GA23542@mellanox.com> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:54:36 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190704195934.GA23542@mellanox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-07-04 8:59 pm, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 11:53:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 20:35:51 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: >> >>>> Let me know and I can help orchestate this. >>> >>> Well. Whatever works. In this situation I'd stage the patches after >>> linux-next and would merge them up after the prereq patches have been >>> merged into mainline. Easy. >> >> All right, what the hell just happened? Aw crap, and I had this series chalked up as done... > Christoph's patch series for the devmap & hmm rework finally made it > into linux-next, sorry, it took quite a few iterations on the list to > get all the reviews and tests, and figure out how to resolve some > other conflicting things. So it just made it this week. > > Recall, this is the patch series I asked you about routing a few weeks > ago, as it really exceeded the small area that hmm.git was supposed to > cover. I think we are both caught off guard how big the conflict is! > >> A bunch of new material has just been introduced into linux-next. >> I've partially unpicked the resulting mess, haven't dared trying to >> compile it yet. To get this far I'll need to drop two patch series >> and one individual patch: > >> mm-clean-up-is_device__page-definitions.patch >> mm-introduce-arch_has_pte_devmap.patch >> arm64-mm-implement-pte_devmap-support.patch >> arm64-mm-implement-pte_devmap-support-fix.patch > > This one we discussed, and I thought we agreed would go to your 'stage > after linux-next' flow (see above). I think the conflict was minor > here. I can rebase and resend tomorrow if there's an agreement on what exactly to base it on - I'd really like to get this ticked off for 5.3 if at all possible. Thanks, Robin. >> mm-sparsemem-introduce-struct-mem_section_usage.patch >> mm-sparsemem-introduce-a-section_is_early-flag.patch >> mm-sparsemem-add-helpers-track-active-portions-of-a-section-at-boot.patch >> mm-hotplug-prepare-shrink_zone-pgdat_span-for-sub-section-removal.patch >> mm-sparsemem-convert-kmalloc_section_memmap-to-populate_section_memmap.patch >> mm-hotplug-kill-is_dev_zone-usage-in-__remove_pages.patch >> mm-kill-is_dev_zone-helper.patch >> mm-sparsemem-prepare-for-sub-section-ranges.patch >> mm-sparsemem-support-sub-section-hotplug.patch >> mm-document-zone_device-memory-model-implications.patch >> mm-document-zone_device-memory-model-implications-fix.patch >> mm-devm_memremap_pages-enable-sub-section-remap.patch >> libnvdimm-pfn-fix-fsdax-mode-namespace-info-block-zero-fields.patch >> libnvdimm-pfn-stop-padding-pmem-namespaces-to-section-alignment.patch > > Dan pointed to this while reviewing CH's series and said the conflicts > would be manageable, but they are certainly larger than I expected! > > This series is the one that seems to be the really big trouble. I > already checked all the other stuff that Stephen resolved, and it > looks OK and managable. Just this one conflict with kernel/memremap.c > is beyond me. > > What approach do you want to take to go forward? Here are some thoughts: > > CH has said he is away for the long weekend, so the path that involves > the fewest people is if Dan respins the above on linux-next and it > goes later with the arm patches above, assuming defering it for now > has no other adverse effects on -mm. > > Pushing CH's series to -mm would need a respin on top of Dan's series > above and would need to carry along the whole hmm.git (about 44 > patches). Signs are that this could be managed with the code currently > in the GPU trees. > > If we give up on CH's series the hmm.git will not have conflicts, > however we just kick the can to the next merge window where we will be > back to having to co-ordinate amd/nouveau/rdma git trees and -mm's > patch workflow - and I think we will be worse off as we will have > totally given up on a git based work flow for this. :( > >> mm-sparsemem-cleanup-section-number-data-types.patch >> mm-sparsemem-cleanup-section-number-data-types-fix.patch > > Stephen used a minor conflict resolution for this one, I checked it > carefully and it looked OK. > >> I thought you were just going to move material out of -mm and into >> hmm.git. > > Dan brought up a patch from Ira conflicting with CH's work and we did > handle that by moving a single patch, as well I moved several hmm > specific patches early in the cycle. > >> Didn't begin to suspect that new and quite disruptive material would >> be introduced late in -rc7!! > > Unfortunately a non-rebasing tree like hmm.git should only get patches > into linux-next once they are fully reviewed and done on the list. I > did not attempt to run separately patches 'under review' into > linux-next as you do. > > Actually I didn't even know this would benefit your workflow, rebasing > patches on top of linux-next is not part of the git based workflow I'm > using :( > > AFAIK Dan and CH were both tracking conflicts with linux-next, so I'd > like to hear from Dan what he thinks about his series, maybe the > rebase is simple & safe for him? Dan and CH were working pretty > closely on CH's series. > > Jason >