[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87731f92-d3bf-9c21-2adc-ffd023ac6b0e@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:43:14 +0800
From: "zhangpeng (AS)" <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
<ying.huang@...el.com>, <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
<shy828301@...il.com>, <hughd@...gle.com>, <david@...hat.com>,
<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, <sunnanyong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: filemap: avoid unnecessary major faults in
filemap_fault()
On 2023/11/24 14:05, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:00:52PM +0800, Peng Zhang wrote:
>> From: ZhangPeng <zhangpeng362@...wei.com>
>>
>> The major fault occurred when using mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE)
>> in application, which leading to an unexpected performance issue[1].
>>
>> This caused by temporarily cleared pte during a read/modify/write update
>> of the pte, eg, do_numa_page()/change_pte_range().
> What I haven't quite understood yet is why we need to set the pte to
> zero on x86 in the specific case of do_numa_page(). I understand that
> ppc needs to.
I'm also curious. Could ptep_modify_prot_start() of other architectures
(except ppc) not clear pte? We are mainly concerned with arm64 and x86.
> Could someone explain why the _default_ definition of
> ptep_modify_prot_start() is not:
>
> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> @@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ static inline pte_t ptep_modify_prot_start(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long addr,
> pte_t *ptep)
> {
> - return __ptep_modify_prot_start(vma, addr, ptep);
> + return *ptep;
> }
>
> /*
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Peng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists