[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxBA6F4Kr89iZwPPeBnkiRO4GnrbUSd0CqVG-LD6ZQyiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:51:03 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@...hat.com>,
Mark Langsdorf <mlangsdo@...hat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
"vishnu.ps@...sung.com" <vishnu.ps@...sung.com>,
main kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
arm kernel list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kyle McMartin <kmcmarti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc3
On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Will?
>
> I'm wondering if this is now broken in the fullmm case, because tlb->end
> will be zero and we won't actually free any of the pages being unmapped
> on task exit. Does that sound plausible?
But did anything change wrt fullmm? I don't see any changes wrt fullmm
logic in generic code.
The arm64 code changed more, so maybe there was somethinig I missed.
Again, arm64 uses tlb_end_vma() etc, so arm64 certainly triggers code
that x86 does not.
I can revert the commit that causes problems, but considering the
performance impact on x86 (it would be a regression since 3.18), I
would *really* like to fix the arm64 problem instead. So I'll wait
with the revert for at least a week, I think, hoping that the arm64
people figure this out. Sound reasonable?
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists