[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ade0363a-3075-4410-62c2-4eaaa7cb3b76@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 16:46:49 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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 2022/9/30 16:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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. :)
Got it. Both are fine for me. :)
>
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists