[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0c09b968-b3ef-ca89-9bd4-bf9df353ff50@c-s.fr>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:49:07 +0200
From: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
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
Le 19/09/2018 à 04:56, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
> 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?
>
Ok, done in v5
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists