[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <78cb82d6-1a13-150d-9daa-021bd2f98e7a@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:26:26 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/20] powerpc/mm: Avoid useless lock with single page
fragments
On 9/18/18 10:27 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> There is no point in taking the page table lock as
> pte_frag is always NULL when we have only one fragment.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-frag.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-frag.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-frag.c
> index bc924822dcd6..ab4910e92aaf 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-frag.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/pgtable-frag.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,9 @@ static pte_t *get_pte_from_cache(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> void *pte_frag, *ret;
>
> + if (PTE_FRAG_NR == 1)
> + return NULL;
> +
> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> ret = mm->context.pte_frag;
> if (ret) {
>
May be update get_pmd_from_cache too?
-aneesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists