From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f198.google.com (mail-pf0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495316B02AC for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f198.google.com with SMTP id s25so7455582pfh.9 for ; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u191si117955pgc.725.2018.03.13.06.29.43 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:29:40 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] SVM (share virtual memory) with HMM in nouveau Message-ID: <20180313132940.GB3304@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180310032141.6096-1-jglisse@redhat.com> <20180312173009.GN8589@phenom.ffwll.local> <20180312175057.GC4214@redhat.com> <39139ff7-76ad-960c-53f6-46b57525b733@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39139ff7-76ad-960c-53f6-46b57525b733@nvidia.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: John Hubbard Cc: Jerome Glisse , christian.koenig@amd.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, Evgeny Baskakov , linux-mm@kvack.org, Ralph Campbell , Felix Kuehling , "Bridgman, John" On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:14:47PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > Yes, on NVIDIA GPUs, the Host/FIFO unit is limited to 40-bit addresses, so > things such as the following need to be below (1 << 40), and also accessible > to both CPU (user space) and GPU hardware. > -- command buffers (CPU user space driver fills them, GPU consumes them), > -- semaphores (here, a GPU-centric term, rather than OS-type: these are > memory locations that, for example, the GPU hardware might write to, in > order to indicate work completion; there are other uses as well), > -- a few other things most likely (this is not a complete list). Is that a 40-bit virtual address limit or physical address limit? I'm no longer sure who is addressing what memory through what mechanism ;-)