From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53F1D6B0103 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id o9T2oufR016047 for (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:57 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4474F45DE6E for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112A845DE6F for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40C61DB8037 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2B71DB803E for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:50:55 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:45:29 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: don't flush TLB when propagate PTE access bit to struct page. Message-Id: <20101029114529.4d3a8b9c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1288200090-23554-1-git-send-email-yinghan@google.com> <4CC869F5.2070405@redhat.com> <20101028091158.4de545e9.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ken Chen Cc: Ying Han , Hugh Dickins , Nick Piggin , Rik van Riel , linux-mm@kvack.org, Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:30:23 -0700 Ken Chen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:11 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: > > I'd like to vote for batching. > > Batch mode isn't going to add much value because the effect of > accessed bit is already deferred. There are two outcome: (1) the tlb > mapping is already flushed due to capacity conflict or (2) process > context'ed out. You would want to transfer accessed bit from pte to > page table, but flushing TLB on a already deferred operation seems not > that useful. > Hmm. Without flushing anywhere in memory reclaim path, a process which cause page fault and enter vmscan will not see his own recent access bit on pages in LRU ? I think it should be flushed at least once.. Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org