From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f69.google.com (mail-pg0-f69.google.com [74.125.83.69])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D45D6B0003
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:20:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-pg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id q6so11091327pgv.12
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-sor-f41.google.com (mail-sor-f41.google.com. [209.85.220.41])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id k62sor3812234pge.24.2018.04.25.09.20.58
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] tcp: add TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE support for
 zerocopy receive
References: <20180425052722.73022-1-edumazet@google.com>
 <20180425052722.73022-2-edumazet@google.com>
 <20180425062859.GA23914@infradead.org>
 <5cd31eba-63b5-9160-0a2e-f441340df0d3@gmail.com>
 <20180425160413.GC8546@bombadil.infradead.org>
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ce78bd6-8142-2937-11fd-2e4a2b22d90c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 09:20:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180425160413.GC8546@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>



On 04/25/2018 09:04 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> If you don't zap the page range, any of the CPUs in the system where
> any thread in this task have ever run may have a TLB entry pointing to
> this page ... if the page is being recycled into the page allocator,
> then that page might end up as a slab page or page table or page cache
> while the other CPU still have access to it.

Yes, this makes sense.

> 
> You could hang onto the page until you've built up a sufficiently large
> batch, then bulk-invalidate all of the TLB entries, but we start to get
> into weirdnesses on different CPU architectures.
> 

zap_page_range() is already doing a bulk-invalidate,
so maybe vm_replace_page() wont bring serious improvement if we end-up doing same dance.

Thanks.