Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:30:38 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: use update_mmu_tlb() on the second thread | From | David Hildenbrand <> |
| |
On 29.09.22 13:23, 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. >
Maybe mention here "This only affects performance, but not correctness."
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> > Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com> > --- > 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; > } >
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |