[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3259ad30-c129-84fc-9643-0aeaeeb3c806@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 18:36:09 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
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>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mm: delay rmap removal until after TLB flush
On 03.11.22 18:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 9:54 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> But again, those changes would have made the patch bigger, which I
>> didn't want at this point (and 'release_pages()' would need that
>> clean-in-place anyway, unless we changed *that* too and made the whole
>> page encoding be something widely available).
>
> And just to clarify: this is not just me trying to expand the reach of my patch.
>
> I'd suggest people look at mlock_pagevec(), and realize that LRU_PAGE
> and NEW_PAGE are both *exactly* the same kind of "encoded_page" bits
> that TLB_ZAP_RMAP is.
>
> Except the mlock code does *not* show that in the type system, and
> instead just passes a "struct page **" array around in pvec->pages,
> and then you'd just better know that "oh, it's not *really* just a
> page pointer".
>
> So I really think that the "array of encoded page pointers" thing is a
> generic notion that we *already* have.
>
> It's just that we've done it disgustingly in the past, and I didn't
> want to do that disgusting thing again.
>
> So I would hope that the nasty things that the mlock code would some
> day use the same page pointer encoding logic to actually make the
> whole "this is not a page pointer that you can use directly, it has
> low bits set for flags" very explicit.
>
> I am *not* sure if then the actual encoded bits would be unified.
> Probably not - you might have very different and distinct uses of the
> encode_page() thing where the bits mean different things in different
> contexts.
>
> Anyway, this is me just explaining the thinking behind it all. The
> page bit encoding is a very generic thing (well, "very generic" in
> this case means "has at least one other independent user"), explaining
> the very generic naming.
>
> But at the same time, the particular _patch_ was meant to be very targeted.
>
> So slightly schizophrenic name choices as a result.
Thanks for the explanation. I brought it up because the generic name
somehow felt weird in include/asm-generic/tlb.h. Skimming over the code
I'd have expected something like TLB_ENCODE_PAGE_BITS, so making the
"very generic" things "very specific" as long as it lives in tlb.h :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists