[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240125180424.121455beae4d56799a0bac28@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 18:04:24 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
palmer@...belt.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
agordeev@...ux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russell King
<rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when
retrying under per-VMA lock
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 22:43:05 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting
> for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM
> architecture fault accounting.
>
> [1] 46e714c729c8 ("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")
>
> Fixes: 12214eba1992 ("mm: handle read faults under the VMA lock")
What are the userspace-visible runtime effects of this change?
Is a cc:stable backport desirable?
> Reported-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists