Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:07:22 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] mm: use update_mmu_tlb() on the second thread | From | Qi Zheng <> |
| |
On 2022/9/26 22:34, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 26.09.22 13:56, Qi Zheng wrote: >> As message in commit 7df676974359 ("mm/memory.c: Update local TLB >> if PTE entry exists") said, we should update local TLB only on the >> second thread. So in the do_anonymous_page() here, we should use >> update_mmu_tlb() instead of update_mmu_cache() on the second thread. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> >> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> >> --- >> v1: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220924053239.91661-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com/ >> >> Changelog in v1 -> v2: >> - change the subject and commit message (David) >> >> mm/memory.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c >> index 118e5f023597..9e11c783ba0e 100644 >> --- a/mm/memory.c >> +++ b/mm/memory.c >> @@ -4122,7 +4122,7 @@ static vm_fault_t do_anonymous_page(struct >> vm_fault *vmf) >> vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->address, >> &vmf->ptl); >> if (!pte_none(*vmf->pte)) { >> - update_mmu_cache(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte); >> + update_mmu_tlb(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte); >> goto release; >> } > > > Staring at 7df676974359, it indeed looks like an accidental use [nothing > else in that patch uses update_mmu_cache]. > > So it looks good to me, but a confirmation from Bibo Mao might be good.
Thanks, and Hi Bibo, any comments here? :)
>
-- Thanks, Qi
| |