On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 02:34:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> I observed that for each of the shared file-backed page faults, we're very
> likely to retry one more time for the 1st write fault upon no page. It's
> because we'll need to release the mmap lock for dirty rate limit purpose
> with balanc
I observed that for each of the shared file-backed page faults, we're very
likely to retry one more time for the 1st write fault upon no page. It's
because we'll need to release the mmap lock for dirty rate limit purpose
with balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited() (in fault_dirty_shared_page()).
Then
Am 30.05.22 um 18:00 schrieb Peter Xu:
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 29.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
[...]
Guess the patch below on top of your patch is what we want.
Just for
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 07:03:31PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:00:52PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:00:52PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > > > index 4608cc962ecf..e1d40ca341b7
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 29.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > Guess the patch below on top of your patch is what we want.
> > > Just for clarificati
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
> [...]
> >
> > Guess the patch below on top of your patch is what we want.
> > Just for clarification: if gmap is not NULL then the process is a kvm
> > process. So, dependi
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 03:39:36PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 77341b160aca..e401d416bbd6 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -607,6 +607,10 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far,
Am 29.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
[...]
Guess the patch below on top of your patch is what we want.
Just for clarification: if gmap is not NULL then the process is a kvm
process. So, depending on the workload, this optimization makes sense.
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch
