On 11/28/2016 12:40 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> As suggested by Linus, the same mmu gather logic could be used for tlb
> flush in mremap and this patch just did that.
>
> Note that since there is no page added to "struct mmu_gather" for free
> during mremap, when tlb needs to be flushed, we can use tlb_flush_mmu or
> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly. Using tlb_flush_mmu could also avoid exporting
> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly. But tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly *looks* more clear and
> straightforward so I end up using it.
OK, so the code before this patch was passing around a pointer to
'need_flush', and we basically just pass around an mmu_gather instead.
It doesn't really simplify the code _too_ much, although it does make it
less confusing than when we saw 'need_flush' mixed with 'force_flush' in
the code.
tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() has exactly one other use: zap_pte_range() for
flushing the TLB before pte_unmap_unlock():
if (force_flush)
tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb);
pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
But, both call-sites are still keeping 'force_flush' to store the
information about whether we ever saw a dirty pte. If we moved _that_
logic into the x86 mmu_gather code, we could get rid of all the
'force_flush' tracking in both call sites. It also makes us a bit more
future-proof against these page_mkclean() races if we ever grow a third
site for clearing ptes.
Instead of exporting and calling tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(), we'd need
something like tlb_flush_mmu_before_ptl_release() (but with a better
name, of course :).
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>