[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v86186dc.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 15:50:23 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, chrisl@...nel.org,
yuzhao@...gle.com, hanchuanhua@...o.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
willy@...radead.org, xiang@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
shy828301@...il.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, Barry Song
<v-songbaohua@...o.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: hold PTL from the first PTE while reclaiming a
large folio
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com> writes:
>
> As we are seeing more such problems with lockless PT walks, maybe we
> really want some other special value (nonswap entry?) to indicate that
> a PTE this is currently ondergoing protection changes. So we'd avoid
> the pte_none() temporarily, if possible.
This sounds like a good idea. This can solve other issue caused by
temporarily pte_none() issue too, like the following,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240229060907.836589-1-zhangpeng362@huawei.com/
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists