Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] mm,sched: conditionally skip lazy TLB mm refcounting

[Peter Zijlstra]

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 <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 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, 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'm confused on the need for this. We mark the CPU lazy, why do we
> > > still
> > > care about this?
> > 
> > I have considered renaming enter_lazy_tlb() to something like
> > lazy_switch_to_kernel_mm() (or an irqs_off variant) and making it
> > take no parameters or maybe just task pointer parameters. 
> 
> Of all the architectures, only Alpha uses the "mm"
> parameter to enter_lazy_tlb.
> 
> It uses it to store the pgd address of the current
> active_mm context into the thread info of the next
> task.
> 
> If it can get that from a per CPU variable, we can
> get rid of the mm parameter to enter_lazy_tlb.

We only really care for arches that select this new ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM
thingy. And x86 (the only one so far) really doesn't give a crap about
the argument.

We should just list/document that being one of the requirements for
selecting that symbol. All this will need semi decent documentation
anyway, otherwise the poor sod trying to understand this all in about 6
months time will go crazy :-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature