[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DDF26E69-1FFF-40D6-802B-2A5DC5C3D4CE@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 21:55:11 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
jroedel@...e.de, ubizjak@...il.com,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: Update ptep_get_lockless()s comment
On Oct 30, 2022, at 9:09 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
> I understand from the code that you decided to drop the deferring of
> set_page_dirty(), which could - at least for the munmap case (where
> mmap_lock is taken for write) - prevent the need for “force_flush” and
> potentially save TLB flushes.
>
> I was just wondering whether the reason for that is that you wanted
> to have small backportable and conservative patches, or whether you
> changed your mind about it.
Please ignore this silly question. I understand - the buffers might still be
dropped.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists