From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 00EE81DFDE; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 07:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744268724; cv=none; b=K9PuvyhPxsav6uOQggnGP4J4rQjYKur1tAgO7l0M5mu05maMdmONokhH3epHVy7aT7LfMpEN/Ex+GsIeCDh0bMJbcdK3ddnoF89dFCAzkU0GcwftPFMPAe7uw7IrfqAGCtoxdQc3zTP4S6q/pEow/4g0blCBJliDPIGCbx3/MXY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744268724; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DhdU5pEhXy+/Uw0gNSI0cmnBvP3H6wKmdY/csmwJkz4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WN4uM6d0cW8nfJ5rrDvMTZaCqIi9XI9rpJa3PRBRJBcsNJkbmaObRpky/hIxU6UkQgu29AM7p4kOVQexOFufaX/K6fldLQ37VmhABeokM7njJmm2PV1QwrE/S8jhm+Ww+hVGYvupzz3rluJJbt16HNA0ZUMjO/vnpG9YwNbdjHU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=aQcFIxCO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="aQcFIxCO" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8C46C4CEE3; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 07:05:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1744268723; bh=DhdU5pEhXy+/Uw0gNSI0cmnBvP3H6wKmdY/csmwJkz4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=aQcFIxCONv147uDkgoBs6/WZVfNprAI1p9piAL/l8R8orMUMOO32QZXawPx0R7BKx VKUyIrAOeQ3CqjJbalNzbYlZY/k0SNoqIhOhkpVEg8dZgJiFzBGdHVyNtrKyb2jkax 0X3r4c+3Lkba8+4+4NVzDFCFqRXMSKym1BUZKTI4= Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:03:48 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Jinjiang Tu Cc: riel@surriel.com, mingo@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, oliver.sang@intel.com, patches@lists.linux.dev, peterz@infradead.org, sashal@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.6 046/152] x86/mm/tlb: Only trim the mm_cpumask once a second Message-ID: <2025041010-scope-endorse-e1a9@gregkh> References: <20250219082551.866842270@linuxfoundation.org> <20250410011329.2597888-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250410011329.2597888-1-tujinjiang@huawei.com> 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? thanks, greg k-h