[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b341e7fa-4382-48b5-896a-1a0d347b66ca@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 12:39:10 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, "Liam R. Howlett"
<Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Yeoreum Yun <yeoreum.yun@....com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/12] arm64: mm: replace TIF_LAZY_MMU with
in_lazy_mmu_mode()
On 12/4/25 07:52, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 24/11/25 6:52 PM, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> The generic lazy_mmu layer now tracks whether a task is in lazy MMU
>> mode. As a result we no longer need a TIF flag for that purpose -
>> let's use the new in_lazy_mmu_mode() helper instead.
>>
>> The explicit check for in_interrupt() is no longer necessary either
>> as in_lazy_mmu_mode() always returns false in interrupt context.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 19 +++----------------
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h | 3 +--
>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index a7d99dee3dc4..dd7ed653a20d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -62,28 +62,16 @@ static inline void emit_pte_barriers(void)
>>
>> static inline void queue_pte_barriers(void)
>> {
>> - unsigned long flags;
>> -
>> - if (in_interrupt()) {
>> - emit_pte_barriers();
>> - return;
>> - }
>> -
>> - flags = read_thread_flags();
>> -
>> - if (flags & BIT(TIF_LAZY_MMU)) {
>> + if (in_lazy_mmu_mode()) {
>> /* Avoid the atomic op if already set. */
>> - if (!(flags & BIT(TIF_LAZY_MMU_PENDING)))
>> + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_LAZY_MMU_PENDING))
>
> A small nit - will it be better not to use test_thread_flag() here and just
> keep checking flags like earlier to avoid non-related changes. Although not
> a problem TBH.
I'd assume the existing code wanted to avoid fetching the flags two
times? So switching to test_thread_flag() should be fine now.
--
Cheers
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists