[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.11.2101261522260.2650@eggly.anvils>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:28:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] Create 'old' ptes for faultaround mappings on
arm64 with hardware access flag
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:36:04PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is version four of the patches I previously posted here:
> >
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201209163950.8494-1-will@kernel.org
> > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210108171517.5290-1-will@kernel.org
> > v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210114175934.13070-1-will@kernel.org
> >
> > The patches allow architectures to opt-in at runtime for faultaround
> > mappings to be created as 'old' instead of 'young'. Although there have
> > been previous attempts at this, they failed either because the decision
> > was deferred to userspace [1] or because it was done unconditionally and
> > shown to regress benchmarks for particular architectures [2].
> >
> > The big change since v3 is that the immutable fields of 'struct vm_fault'
> > now live in a 'const' anonymous struct. Although Clang will silently
> > accept modifications to these fields [3], GCC emits an error. The
> > resulting diffstat is _considerably_ more manageable with this approach.
>
> The only changes I have pending against this series are cosmetic (commit
> logs). Can I go ahead and queue this in the arm64 tree so that it can sit
> in linux-next for a bit? (positive or negative feedback appreciated!).
That would be fine by me: I ran v3 on rc3, then the nicer smaller v4
on rc4, and saw no problems when running either of them (x86_64 only).
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists