linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] mm/madvise: remove !tlb support from madvise_{dontneed,free}_single

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <9891d4a4-954f-42f2-b60e-d42796627c7e@lucifer.local>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:46:38 +0000
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <howlett@...il.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, kernel-team@...a.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] mm/madvise: remove !tlb support from
 madvise_{dontneed,free}_single_vma()

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 02:02:11PM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:01:20 +0000 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:23:18AM -0700, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > madvise_dontneed_single_vma() and madvise_free_single_vma() support both
> > > batched tlb flushes and unbatched tlb flushes use cases depending on
> > > received tlb parameter's value.  The supports were for safe and fine
> > > transition of the usages from the unbatched flushes to the batched ones.
> > > Now the transition is done, and therefore there is no real unbatched tlb
> > > flushes use case.  Remove the code for supporting the no more being used
> > > cases.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
> >
> > Obviously I support this based on previous preview :) but I wonder if we
> > can avoid this horrid caller_tlb pattern in the first instance.
>
> I will try, though I have no good idea for that for now.
>
> Maybe we could simply squash patches 7-9.  I'm bit concerned if it makes
> changes unnecessariy mixed and not small, but I have no strong opinion about
> it.  Please feel free to let me know if you want that.

Yeah, though maybe try to make things as incremental as possible within
that?

>
> >
> > FWIW:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>
>
> Appreciate your reviews!

No problem! Feel free to propagate to respin (assuming no major changes :)
thanks for writing good clean code!

>
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]