From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC7B76B007B for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:29:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id b13so3408401wgh.0 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 04:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kirsi1.inet.fi (mta-out1.inet.fi. [62.71.2.194]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id fl4si1426366wib.99.2014.10.22.04.29.55 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 04:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:29:25 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Another go at speculative page faults Message-ID: <20141022112925.GH30588@node.dhcp.inet.fi> References: <20141020215633.717315139@infradead.org> <1413963289.26628.3.camel@linux-t7sj.site> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1413963289.26628.3.camel@linux-t7sj.site> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Peter Zijlstra , 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 Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:34:49AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > 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? What about extend start using 'struct vm_fault' earlier by stack? -- Kirill A. Shutemov -- 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