[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150307205616.GZ3087@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:56:16 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: thp: Return the correct value for change_huge_pmd
On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 12:31:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > if (!prot_numa || !pmd_protnone(*pmd)) {
> > - ret = 1;
> > entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> > entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> > ret = HPAGE_PMD_NR;
>
> Hmm. I know I acked this already, but the return value - which correct
> - is still potentially something we could improve upon.
>
> In particular, we don't need to flush the TLB's if the old entry was
> not present. Sadly, we don't have a helper function for that.
>
> But the code *could* do something like
>
> entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> ret = pmd_tlb_cacheable(entry) ? HPAGE_PMD_NR : 1;
> entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
>
> where pmd_tlb_cacheable() on x86 would test if _PAGE_PRESENT (bit #0) is set.
>
I agree with you in principle. pmd_tlb_cacheable looks and sounds very
similar to pte_accessible().
> In particular, that would mean that as we change *from* a protnone
> (whether NUMA or really protnone) we wouldn't need to flush the TLB.
>
> In fact, we could make it even more aggressive: it's not just an old
> non-present TLB entry that doesn't need flushing - we can avoid the
> flushing whenever we strictly increase the access rigths. So we could
> have something that takes the old entry _and_ the new protections into
> account, and avoids the TLB flush if the new entry is strictly more
> permissive.
>
> This doesn't explain the extra TLB flushes Dave sees, though, because
> the old code didn't make those kinds of optimizations either. But
> maybe something like this is worth doing.
>
I think it is worth doing although it'll be after LSF/MM before I do it. I
severely doubt this is what Dave is seeing because the vmstats indicated
there was no THP activity but it's still a good idea.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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