On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 03:28:22PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:36:04PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

Hi all,

This is version four of the patches I previously posted here:

  v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201209163950.8494-1-will@kernel.org (local)
  v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210108171517.5290-1-will@kernel.org (local)
  v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210114175934.13070-1-will@kernel.org (local)

The patches allow architectures to opt-in at runtime for faultaround
mappings to be created as 'old' instead of 'young'. Although there have
been previous attempts at this, they failed either because the decision
was deferred to userspace [1] or because it was done unconditionally and
shown to regress benchmarks for particular architectures [2].

The big change since v3 is that the immutable fields of 'struct vm_fault'
now live in a 'const' anonymous struct. Although Clang will silently
accept modifications to these fields [3], GCC emits an error. The
resulting diffstat is _considerably_ more manageable with this approach.

The only changes I have pending against this series are cosmetic (commit
logs). Can I go ahead and queue this in the arm64 tree so that it can sit
in linux-next for a bit? (positive or negative feedback appreciated!).

That would be fine by me: I ran v3 on rc3, then the nicer smaller v4
on rc4, and saw no problems when running either of them (x86_64 only).

Thanks, Hugh. I'll stick these into -next later today and we'll see how we
get on.

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel