Re: [PATCH] x86,mm: delay TLB flush after clearing accessed bit

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 02:31:31PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 04/01/2014 12:21 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Memory pressure is not necessarily caused by the same process
> > >> whose accessed bit we just cleared. Memory pressure may not
> > >> even be caused by any process's virtual memory at all, but it
> > >> could be caused by the page cache.
> > > 
> > > If we have that much memory pressure on the page cache without having
> > > any memory pressure on the actual VM space, then the swap-out activity
> > > will never be an issue anyway.
> > > 
> > > IOW, I think all these scenarios are made-up. I'd much rather go for
> > > simpler implementation, and make things more complex only in the
> > > presence of numbers. Of which we have none.
> > 
> > We've been bitten by the lack of a properly tracked accessed
> > bit before, but admittedly that was with the KVM code and EPT.
> > 
> > I'll add my Acked-by: to Shaohua's original patch then, and
> > will keep my eyes open for any problems that may or may not
> > materialize...
> > 
> > Shaohua?
> 
> I'd agree to choose the simple implementation at current stage and check if
> there are problems really.
> 
> Andrew,
> can you please pick up my orginal patch "x86: clearing access bit don't
> flush tlb" (with Rik's Ack)? Or I can resend it if you preferred.

Please resend it so I can pick it up for this cycle, that approach 
obviously looks good.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
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>