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

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

Message-ID: <cb76a32131dd10dee4f6097fd349dd3d5786eee6.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:20:13 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.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 Thu, 2025-01-23 at 13:16 -0600, Vinay Banakar wrote:
> 
> We have two options:
> 1. Keep the current logic where TLB flush batching varies by caller
> 2. Enforce consistent 512-page batching in shrink_folio_list() and
> also convert to folio_batch as suggested by Matthew
> 

Given that your code is correct, and only the comment
was a little misleading, would you be open to resending
your patch without the comments about "PMD level"
batching?

It would be really nice to get this optimization into
the kernel.

If you don't have the time currently, I would also be
happy to clean up the patch and get it to Andrew.
Just let me know.

kind regards,

Rik
-- 
All Rights Reversed.