From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
"kirill.shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: mm,tlb: revert 4647706ebeee?
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:03:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1530896635.5350.25.camel@surriel.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]
Hello,
It looks like last summer, there were 2 sets of patches
in flight to fix the issue of simultaneous mprotect/madvise
calls unmapping PTEs, and some pages not being flushed from
the TLB before returning to userspace.
Minchan posted these patches:
56236a59556c ("mm: refactor TLB gathering API")
99baac21e458 ("mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss problem")
Around the same time, Mel posted:
4647706ebeee ("mm: always flush VMA ranges affected by zap_page_range")
They both appear to solve the same bug.
Only one of the two solutions is needed.
However, 4647706ebeee appears to introduce extra TLB
flushes - one per VMA, instead of one over the entire
range unmapped, and also extra flushes when there are
no simultaneous unmappers of the same mm.
For that reason, it seems like we should revert
4647706ebeee and keep only Minchan's solution in
the kernel.
Am I overlooking any reason why we should not revert
4647706ebeee?
kind regards,
Rik
--
All Rights Reversed.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2018-07-06 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-06 17:03 Rik van Riel [this message]
2018-07-06 17:10 ` [PATCH] Revert "mm: always flush VMA ranges affected by zap_page_range" Rik van Riel
2018-07-16 13:12 ` Mel Gorman
2018-07-07 15:25 ` mm,tlb: revert 4647706ebeee? Nicholas Piggin
2018-07-10 0:13 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-10 5:04 ` Nicholas Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1530896635.5350.25.camel@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox