[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1607924970.hd6nln4qe5.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:53:40 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than
membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode
Excerpts from Nicholas Piggin's message of December 14, 2020 2:07 pm:
> Excerpts from Andy Lutomirski's message of December 11, 2020 10:11 am:
>>> On Dec 5, 2020, at 7:59 PM, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> I'm still going to persue shoot-lazies for the merge window. As you
>>> see it's about a dozen lines and a if (IS_ENABLED(... in core code.
>>> Your change is common code, but a significant complexity (which
>>> affects all archs) so needs a lot more review and testing at this
>>> point.
>>
>> I don't think it's ready for this merge window.
>
> Yes next one I meant (aka this one for development perspective :)).
>
>> I read the early
>> patches again, and I think they make the membarrier code worse, not
>> better.
>
> Mathieu and I disagree, so we are at an impasse.
Well actually not really, I went and cut out the exit_lazy_tlb stuff
from the patch series, those are better to be untangled anyway. I think
an earlier version had something in exit_lazy_tlb for the mm refcounting
change but it's not required now anyway.
I'll split them out and just work on the shoot lazies series for now, I
might revisit exit_lazy_tlb after the dust settles from that and the
current membarrier changes. I'll test and repost shortly.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists