[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YxD00K1lv151X/eq@xz-m1.local>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:07:12 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: adjust stale comment for RCU GUP-fast
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:50:48AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> Yeah, because THP collapse does copy the data before clearing pte. If
> we want to remove pmdp_collapse_flush() by just clearing pmd, we
> should clear *AND* flush pte before copying the data IIRC.
Yes tlb flush is still needed. IIUC the generic pmdp_collapse_flush() will
still be working (with the pte level flushing there) but it should just
start to work for all archs, so potentially we could drop the arch-specific
pmdp_collapse_flush()s, mostly the ppc impl.
This also reminded me that the s390 version of pmdp_collapse_flush() is a
bit weird, since it doesn't even have the tlb flush there. I feel like
it's broken but I can't really tell whether something I've overlooked.
Worth an eye on.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists