On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:44:21 +0200 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Oh, this is better. Hi Andrew, do I need to resend the v4?
> >
>
> I assume he can squash it, most probably no need to resend. :)
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: mm: use update_mmu_tlb() on the second thread
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 19:23:17 +0800
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.
As David pointed out, this is a performance improvement, not a
correctness fix.
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220929112318.32393-2-zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Bibo Mao <maobibo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Zankel <chris@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/memory.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/mm/memory.c~mm-use-update_mmu_tlb-on-the-second-thread
+++ a/mm/memory.c
@@ -4136,7 +4136,7 @@ static vm_fault_t do_anonymous_page(stru
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;
}
_
