[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0fecbcdc-7324-2d76-8452-b60b4638d074@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:30:38 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
maobibo@...ngson.cn, chenhuacai@...ngson.cn,
songmuchun@...edance.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, chris@...kel.net, jcmvbkbc@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: use update_mmu_tlb() on the second thread
On 29.09.22 13:23, Qi Zheng wrote:
> As message in commit 7df676974359 ("mm/memory.c: Update local TLB
> if PTE entry exists") said, we should update local TLB only on the
> second thread. So in the do_anonymous_page() here, we should use
> update_mmu_tlb() instead of update_mmu_cache() on the second thread.
>
Maybe mention here "This only affects performance, but not correctness."
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 118e5f023597..9e11c783ba0e 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -4122,7 +4122,7 @@ static vm_fault_t do_anonymous_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->address,
> &vmf->ptl);
> if (!pte_none(*vmf->pte)) {
> - update_mmu_cache(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> + update_mmu_tlb(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
> goto release;
> }
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists