On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

So anyway, I like the patch series. I just think that the final patch
- the one that actually saves the addreses, and limits things to
BATCH_TLBFLUSH_SIZE, should be limited.

Oh, and another thing:

Mel, can you please make that "struct tlbflush_unmap_batch" be just
part of "struct task_struct" rather than a pointer?

If you are worried about the cpumask size, you could use

      cpumask_var_t cpumask;

and

        alloc_cpumask_var(..)
...
        free_cpumask_var(..)

for that.

That way, sane configurations never have the allocation cost.

(Of course, sad to say, sane configurations are probably few and far
between. At least Fedora seems to ship with a kernel where NR_CPU's is
1024 and thus CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. Oh well. What a waste of CPU
cycles that is..)

The insane part being NR_CPUS = 1024?  Or that to have said number
requires cpumask being dynamically allocated to avoid stack overflow?
(Or both I guess).

josh

--
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>