On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:48 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:33:00PM -0700, James Houghton wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:42 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Asking since you had a setup / data earlier on when you were carrying > > > the series. Hopefully with supportive data we can get arm64 to opt-in > > > to HAVE_KVM_MMU_NOTIFIER_YOUNG_FAST_ONLY as well. > > > > I'll keep trying some other approaches I can take for getting similar > > testing that Yu had; it is somewhat difficult for me to reproduce > > those tests (and it really shouldn't be.... sorry). > > No need to apologize. Getting good test hardware for arm64 is a complete > chore. Sure would love a functional workstation with cores from this > decade... > > > I think it makes most sense for me to drop the arm64 patch for now and > > re-propose it (or something stronger) alongside enabling aging. Does > > that sound ok? > > I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't gotten forward progress on the > arm64 patches, but I also recognize this is the direction of travel as > the x86 patches are shaping up. > > So yeah, I'm OK with it, but I'd love to get the arm64 side sorted out > soon while the context is still fresh. Converting the aging notifiers to holding mmu_lock for read seems like a pure win and minimal churn. Can we keep that patch in v7 (which depends on the lockless notifier refactor, i.e. is not completely stand-alone)? We can revisit enabling MGLRU on arm64 in a subsequent series. > > -- > Thanks, > Oliver
