On 08/11/2025 00:35, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:

Kevin Brodsky [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

[...]

quoted

With this analysis - the patch looks good to me. I will give this entire
patch series a try on Power HW with Hash mmu too (which uses lazy mmu and
let you know the results of that)!

That'd be very appreciated, thanks a lot!

I did give this patch series a run on Power10 with Hash MMU. I ran the
following stress-ng tests and didn't observe any issues (kernel warnings) so far.

stress-ng --all 0 -t 60s --perf -v --verify \
--tlb-shootdown 0 \
--fault 0 \
--userfaultfd 0 \
--fork 0 \
--exec 0 \
--memfd 0 \
--numa 0 \
--pkey 0 \
--remap 0 \
--vm 0 \
--rmap 0 \
-x swap,pagemove
(Note not all options shown here will work with --verify)

That's great, many thanks!

Let me know what else I can run for validation?
Do you know of any specific tests for validation of lazy mmu feature?

I don't think there is - lazy MMU is not supposed to have any observable
effect, all we can do is exercise the paths that use it and check that
nothing explodes.

That said it wouldn't hurt to run the mm kselftests:

    make -C tools/testing/selftests/ TARGETS=mm

Thanks!

- Kevin