Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197544-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 23:09:46 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <lkml.byungchul.park@gmail.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel_team@skhynix.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, ying.huang@intel.com,
	vernhao@tencent.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, hughd@google.com,
	david@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, luto@kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, rjgolo@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/12] mm: implement LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) defering
 tlb flush when folios get unmapped
Message-ID: <ZlpKqrm7d57gmoG5@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240531092001.30428-1-byungchul@sk.com>
 <20240531092001.30428-10-byungchul@sk.com>
 <fab1dd64-c652-4160-93b4-7b483a8874da@intel.com>
 <CAHyrMpxETdVewTH3MCS4qPyD6Xf1zRUfWZf-8SCdpCFj2Pj_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f17f33e8-1c1f-460f-8c5a-713476f524a3@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f17f33e8-1c1f-460f-8c5a-713476f524a3@intel.com>

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 02:46:23PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/31/24 11:04, Byungchul Park wrote:
> ...
> > I don't believe you do not agree with the concept itself.  Thing is
> > the current version is not good enough.  I will do my best by doing
> > what I can do.
> 
> More performance is good.  I agree with that.
> 
> But it has to be weighed against the risk and the complexity.  The more
> I look at this approach, the more I think this is not a good trade off.
> There's a lot of risk and a lot of complexity and we haven't seen the
> full complexity picture.  The gaps are being fixed by adding complexity
> in new subsystems (the VFS in this case).
> 
> There are going to be winners and losers, and this version for example
> makes file writes lose performance.
> 
> Just to be crystal clear: I disagree with the concept of leaving stale
> TLB entries in place in an attempt to gain performance.

FWIW, I agree with Dave.  This feels insanely dangerous and I don't
think you're paranoid enough about things that can go wrong.