From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22B2258A for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 07:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744270864; cv=none; b=CT06OaEqWAO2jgb8UnhVTbK/anKLLWWLcQYup5CDAxZXFU9f01lTcRQ3zPUWgr6zZesx5i4YR+gTClBY+yX4GMEAqsVJ1mJQ12azRA+JGKhDP/shvPROt4WcMkhRBrzj9enQNG6Lzdkaj6o21MuOr+dZi5nRffm0arpjN7RWViQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744270864; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Avw5NvV/yYzKa3bko/X8H/YRnUJOhH6xDIgXwjhs3gE=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=YYKE9EefDZJTWPCJJTnR/a6G/RhxgjLeFGAkVbTvE6d6failRLDmXTmOSNvn0yXc/fGcv5MLeiDTM3Yf7LluDbjghhg5FnLzdV8dt0BJC6BpLW9+ur1YBgsD9obpxDZIdSTYxUr22i3H2N7zFiHHfQvhNM9lOE/8nlM/GRsHcj4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.252]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZYBXm2pTGznfcj; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:39:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemo200002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.195.209]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E22180B49; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:41:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.179.13] (10.174.179.13) by kwepemo200002.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:40:58 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 15:40:58 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 046/152] x86/mm/tlb: Only trim the mm_cpumask once a second To: Greg KH , CC: , , , , , , , , , References: <20250219082551.866842270@linuxfoundation.org> <20250410011329.2597888-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com> <2025041010-scope-endorse-e1a9@gregkh> From: Jinjiang Tu In-Reply-To: <2025041010-scope-endorse-e1a9@gregkh> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To kwepemo200002.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.209) 在 2025/4/10 15:03, Greg KH 写道: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:13:29AM +0800, Jinjiang Tu wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed commit 6db2526c1d69 ("x86/mm/tlb: Only trim the mm_cpumask once a second") >> is aimed to fix performance regression introduced by commit 209954cbc7d0 >> ("x86/mm/tlb: Update mm_cpumask lazily") >> >> But commit 209954cbc7d0 isn't merged into stable 6.6, it seems merely >> merging commit 6db2526c1d69 into stable 6.6 is meaningless. > If you revert it, does everything still work properly? If so, can you > submit a patch to revert it if you think it should be removed, from all > affected branches? From theoretical analysis, I think reverting it won't introduce any regression. Rik, could you please confirm it? Thanks. > > thanks, > > greg k-h >