[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250305230221.60260-1-sj@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:02:21 -0800
From: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <howlett@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
kernel-team@...a.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/16] mm/madvise: batch tlb flushes for MADV_DONTNEED and MADV_FREE
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:36:45 +0200 Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Mar 2025, at 20:15, SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > For MADV_DONTNEED[_LOCKED] or MADV_FREE madvise requests, tlb flushes
> > can happen for each vma of the given address ranges. Because such tlb
> > flushes are for address ranges of same process, doing those in a batch
> > is more efficient while still being safe. Modify madvise() and
> > process_madvise() entry level code path to do such batched tlb flushes,
> > while the internal unmap logics do only gathering of the tlb entries to
> > flush.
>
> I made some related (similar?) patches in the past. You can see if you
> find something useful in the discussion there. I think your version avoids
> some of the “mistakes” I made.
Thank you for sharing this! I sure I can learn and use many things from this
work and previous discussions.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210926161259.238054-1-namit@vmware.com/T/#m23ccd29bad04a963c4d8c64ec3581f7c301c7806
Thanks,
SJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists