linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: use update_mmu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <673e494c-eb91-470a-026b-59e414d0916e@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:44:21 +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 30.09.22 10:43, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/9/30 16:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> Oh, this is better. Hi Andrew, do I need to resend the v4?
> 

I assume he can squash it, most probably no need to resend. :)

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb