On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:03:03AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 07:29 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:05:55PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:2
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 07:29 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:05:55PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So for ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM w
> On Jul 31, 2018, at 2:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:05:55PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>> So for ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM we never touch ->active_mm and therefore
>>> ->active_mm == ->mm.
>>
>> Close,
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 09:05:55PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So for ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM we never touch ->active_mm and therefore
> > ->active_mm == ->mm.
>
> Close, but not true for kernel threads, which have a
> NULL ->mm, but a
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So for ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM we never touch ->active_mm and therefore
> ->active_mm == ->mm.
Close, but not true for kernel threads, which have a
NULL ->mm, but a non-null ->active_mm that gets passed
to enter_lazy_tlb().
I stuck to the s
> On Jul 30, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 12:49 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it's a big step in the right direction, but it still makes be
>> nervous. I'd be more comfortable with it if you at least had a
>> functional set of patches tha
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 12:49 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I think it's a big step in the right direction, but it still makes be
> nervous. I'd be more comfortable with it if you at least had a
> functional set of patches that result in active_mm being gone,
> because
> that will mean that yo
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 12:30 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Rik van Riel
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Rik van Riel
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 12:30 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Rik van Riel
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What happened to the rework I did th
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>> > > What happened to the rework I did there? That not only avoided
>> > > fiddling
>> > > with active_mm, but also
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 18:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > What happened to the rework I did there? That not only avoided
> > > fiddling
> > > with active_mm, but also avoids grab/drop cycles for the other
> > > architectures wh
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30:11AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > What happened to the rework I did there? That not only avoided
> > fiddling
> > with active_mm, but also avoids grab/drop cycles for the other
> > architectures when doing task->kthread->kthread->task things.
>
> I don't think I sa
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 11:55 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index c45de46fdf10..11724c9e88b0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -2691,7
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index c45de46fdf10..11724c9e88b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2691,7 +2691,7 @@ static struct rq *finish_task_switch(struct task_struct
>
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:21:17 -0700
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Conditionally skip lazy TLB mm refcounting. When an architecture has
> > CONFIG_ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM_REFCOUNTING enabled, an mm that is used in
> > lazy TLB mode anywhere will get sh
15 matches
Mail list logo