linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Optimize TLB flushes during page reclaim

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <96e992ac-2213-46f6-ad82-e84dd07ce892@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 17:01:49 +0530
From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com>
To: Vinay Banakar <vny@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
 Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Optimize TLB flushes during page reclaim



On 22-Jan-25 4:39 PM, Vinay Banakar wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 2:59 AM Bharata B Rao <bharata@....com> wrote:
>> and one flush request is issued for the entire list. Where is the PMD
>> level (512) batching done? Is that implicit elsewhere in the flow?
> 
> Yes, shrink_folio_list() operates on one PMD at a time, so
> pageout_list will contain at most 512 pages during each call. Please
> refer to madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() in mm/madvise.c for more
> details.

While that may be true for MADV_PAGEOUT path, does the same assumption 
hold good for other paths from which shrink_folio_list() gets called?

Regards,
Bharata.