[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y3SVqePHGXRUagyF@li-4a3a4a4c-28e5-11b2-a85c-a8d192c6f089.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:47:53 +0100
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
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>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: delay page_remove_rmap() until after the TLB has
been flushed
On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 01:04:07PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Hi Linus,
[...]
> And I was so happy about sharing the s390 and UP case, and avoiding
> any code being specific to s390. Which is what introduced this thing.
Which actually brings a question whether CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_NO_GATHER
mode could be beneficial for UP?
But anyway, please find a follow-up series on top of mm-unstable
with patches 1,2 aimed to avoid delayed_rmap flag on s390/UP and
patches 3,4 hopefully cleaning things a bit (not so sure).
> Linus
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists