From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A926B0069 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 03:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y10so3020014pdj.27 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a5.g.dreamhost.com (homie.mail.dreamhost.com. [208.97.132.208]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id bc3si13380260pbb.199.2014.10.22.00.35.06 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1413963289.26628.3.camel@linux-t7sj.site> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Another go at speculative page faults From: Davidlohr Bueso Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:34:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20141020215633.717315139@infradead.org> References: <20141020215633.717315139@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, oleg@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 23:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Hi, > > I figured I'd give my 2010 speculative fault series another spin: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/4/257 > > Since then I think many of the outstanding issues have changed sufficiently to > warrant another go. In particular Al Viro's delayed fput seems to have made it > entirely 'normal' to delay fput(). Lai Jiangshan's SRCU rewrite provided us > with call_srcu() and my preemptible mmu_gather removed the TLB flushes from > under the PTL. > > The code needs way more attention but builds a kernel and runs the > micro-benchmark so I figured I'd post it before sinking more time into it. > > I realize the micro-bench is about as good as it gets for this series and not > very realistic otherwise, but I think it does show the potential benefit the > approach has. > > (patches go against .18-rc1+) I think patch 2/6 is borken: error: patch failed: mm/memory.c:2025 error: mm/memory.c: patch does not apply and related, as you mention, I would very much welcome having the introduction of 'struct faut_env' as a separate cleanup patch. May I suggest renaming it to fault_cxt? Thanks, Davidlohr -- 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: email@kvack.org