On Monday 29 October 2012 08:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:

On 10/26/2012 03:18 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Rik van Riel [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I can change the text of the changelog, however it looks
like do_wp_page does actually use ptep_set_access_flags
to set the write bit in the pte...

I guess both need to be reflected in the changelog text
somehow?

Yeah, and by now, after all this discussion, I suspect it should be
committed with a comment too. Commit messages are good and all, but
unless chasing a particular bug they introduced, we shouldn't expect
people to read them for background information.

Now that we have the TLB things taken care of, and
comments to patches 10/31 and 26/31 have been addressed,
is there anything else that needs to be done before
these NUMA patches can be merged?

Anyone, this is a good time to speak up. We have some
time to address whatever concern you may have.

Hi,

I know I'm very late in speaking up - but still I'll hazard a try. This is not
exactly the same topic but closely related.

There is a a different call to flush_tlb_fix_spurious( ), towards the end of
handle_pte_fault( ) which commit 61c77326d "x86, mm: Avoid unnecessary TLB flush"
made no-op for X86. However is this really needed for any arch at all - even if we
don't know all the arch specific quirks.

Given the code flow below

handle_pte_fault( )
....
....
if ptep_set_access_flags()-> if PTE chg remote TLB shot (pgtable-generic.c ver)
   update_mmu_cache       -> if PTE chg local TLB possibly shot too
else
   flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault -> PTE didn't change - still remote TLB shotdown

So for PTE unchanged case, we default to doing remote TLB IPIs (barring X86) -
unless arch makes this macro NULL.

Thing is, in case of SMP races - due to PTE being different - any fixups to
local/remote will be handled within ptep_set_access_flags( ) - arch-specific or
generic versions. What I fail to understand is need to do anything - specially a
remote shootdown, for PTE not changed case.

I could shut up and just make it NO-OP for ARC, but ....

Please note that for the record, the addition of this special case was done via
following change. It might help answer what I feel to comprehend.

2005-10-29 1a44e14 [PATCH] .text page fault SMP scalability optimization

I might be totally off track so please feel free to bash me - but atleast I would
end up knowing more !

Thx,
-Vineet

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>