linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] mm/tlbbatch: Introduce arch_tlbbatch_should

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZLrNNcApzNLp9pdj@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:23:49 -0700
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, ryan.roberts@....com, will@...nel.org,
        anshuman.khandual@....com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        corbet@....net, peterz@...radead.org, arnd@...db.de,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        darren@...amperecomputing.com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
        huzhanyuan@...o.com, lipeifeng@...o.com, zhangshiming@...o.com,
        guojian@...o.com, realmz6@...il.com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com,
        xhao@...ux.alibaba.com, prime.zeng@...ilicon.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] mm/tlbbatch: Introduce
 arch_tlbbatch_should_defer()

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The entire scheme of deferred TLB flush in reclaim path rests on the
> fact that the cost to refill TLB entries is less than flushing out
> individual entries by sending IPI to remote CPUs. But architecture
> can have different ways to evaluate that. Hence apart from checking
> TTU_BATCH_FLUSH in the TTU flags, rest of the decision should be
> architecture specific.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com/]
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
> [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type]
> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
> Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>