Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <babdbd1f-9629-c23a-f29f-7520ced3854b@bytedance.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:47:28 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.1.2
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix misuse of update_mmu_cache() in
 do_anonymous_page()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        chris@zankel.net, jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, maobibo@loongson.cn
References: <20220924053239.91661-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <3A09E40A-E2C5-4C6F-8550-DD0E17B7DAB9@linux.dev>
 <48590f80-fc58-bf67-5acf-082880a607b2@redhat.com>
 <e1a6007d-24f2-5153-5382-f66391cbd0cb@bytedance.com>
 <1a69af58-b9d2-6319-9db7-f92428b87612@redhat.com>
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <1a69af58-b9d2-6319-9db7-f92428b87612@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/9/26 16:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.09.22 10:41, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022/9/26 16:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 25.09.22 03:43, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 2022, at 13:32, Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As message in commit 7df676974359 ("mm/memory.c: Update local TLB
>>>>> if PTE entry exists") said, we should update local TLB only on the
>>>>> second thread. So fix the misuse of update_mmu_cache() by using
>>>>> update_mmu_tlb() in the do_anonymous_page().
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>>>
>>>> The change looks good to me. However, I am not sure what is the
>>>> user-visible
>>>> effect to xtensa users. So Cc xtensa’s maintainer and the author of
>>>> 7df676974359
>>>> to double check this.
>>>
>>> And if there is one, do we have a fixes tag?
>>
>> IIUC, there's only a performance difference here, so maybe there's no
>> need to add the fixes tag?
> 
> Maybe be careful with the usage of "fix" in subject/description then and 
> point that out in the description :)

Ah, will change subject/description in the v2, thanks. :)

> 

-- 
Thanks,
Qi