On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Anyway, the difference between good and bad is pretty clear, so
> I'm pretty confident the bisect is solid:
>
> 4d9424669946532be754a6e116618dcb58430cb4 is the first bad commit
Well, it's the mm queue from Andrew, so I'm not surprised. That said,
I don't see why that particular one should matter.
Hmm. In your profiles, can you tell which caller of "flush_tlb_page()"
changed the most? The change from "mknnuma" to "prot_none" *should*
be 100% equivalent (both just change the page to be not-present, just
set different bits elsewhere in the pte), but clearly something
wasn't.
Oh. Except for that special "huge-zero-page" special case that got
dropped, but that got re-introduced in commit e944fd67b625.
There might be some other case where the new "just change the
protection" doesn't do the "oh, but it the protection didn't change,
don't bother flushing". I don't see it.
Linus
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
