[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5J/3+cDZ8Md956A@monkey>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 16:22:55 -0800
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@...anix.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 04/47] hugetlb: only adjust address ranges when
VMAs want PMD sharing
On 10/21/22 16:36, James Houghton wrote:
> Currently this check is overly aggressive. For some userfaultfd VMAs,
> VMA sharing is disabled, yet we still widen the address range, which is
> used for flushing TLBs and sending MMU notifiers.
Yes, the userfaultfd check is missing in the code today.
> This is done now, as HGM VMAs also have sharing disabled, yet would
> still have flush ranges adjusted. Overaggressively flushing TLBs and
> triggering MMU notifiers is particularly harmful with lots of
> high-granularity operations.
>
> Signed-off-by: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
--
Mike Kravetz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists