Re: [PATCH v4 00/10] PCID and improved laziness

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 10:56:57AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > *** Ingo, even if this misses 4.13, please apply the first patch before
> > > *** the merge window.
> > 
> > > Andy Lutomirski (10):
> > >   x86/mm: Don't reenter flush_tlb_func_common()
> > >   x86/mm: Delete a big outdated comment about TLB flushing
> > >   x86/mm: Give each mm TLB flush generation a unique ID
> > >   x86/mm: Track the TLB's tlb_gen and update the flushing algorithm
> > >   x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness tracking
> > >   x86/mm: Stop calling leave_mm() in idle code
> > >   x86/mm: Disable PCID on 32-bit kernels
> > >   x86/mm: Add nopcid to turn off PCID
> > >   x86/mm: Enable CR4.PCIDE on supported systems
> > >   x86/mm: Try to preserve old TLB entries using PCID
> > 
> > So this series is really nice, and the first two patches are already upstream, and 
> > I've just applied all but the final patch to tip:x86/mm (out of caution - I'm a wimp).
> > 
> > That should already offer some improvements and enables the CR4 bit - but doesn't 
> > actually use the PCID hardware yet.
> > 
> > I'll push it all out when it passes testing.
> > 
> > If it's all super stable I plan to tempt Linus with a late merge window pull 
> > request for all these preparatory patches. (Unless he objects that is. Hint, hint.)
> > 
> > Any objections?
> > 
> 
> What was the final verdict here? I have a patch ready that should be layered
> on top which will need a backport. PCID support does not appear to have
> made it in this merge window so I'm wondering if I should send the patch
> as-is for placement on top of Andy's work or go with the backport and
> apply a follow-on patch after Andy's work gets merged.

It's en route for v4.14 - it narrowly missed v4.13.

Thanks,

	Ingo