Re: [PATCH v11 09/12] mm: implement LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) defering tlb flush when folios get unmapped

[Matthew Wilcox]

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.