Kevin Brodsky <[email protected]> writes: > On 05/11/2025 02:46, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: >> Kevin Brodsky <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> From: Alexander Gordeev <[email protected]> >>> >>> Since commit b9ef323ea168 ("powerpc/64s: Disable preemption in hash >>> lazy mmu mode") a task can not be preempted while in lazy MMU mode. >>> Therefore, the batch re-activation code is never called, so remove it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <[email protected]> >>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> arch/powerpc/include/asm/thread_info.h | 2 -- >>> arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c | 25 ------------------------- >>> 2 files changed, 27 deletions(-) >>> >> Since the commit referenced in above disables the preemption in >> arch_enter_lazy_mmu(), so the expectation is that we will never be >> context switched while in lazy_mmu, hence the code changes in >> switch_to() around __flush_tlb_pending() should ideally never be called. > > Correct, that's the idea. > >> With this analysis - the patch looks good to me. I will give this entire >> patch series a try on Power HW with Hash mmu too (which uses lazy mmu and >> let you know the results of that)! > > That'd be very appreciated, thanks a lot! >
I did give this patch series a run on Power10 with Hash MMU. I ran the following stress-ng tests and didn't observe any issues (kernel warnings) so far. stress-ng --all 0 -t 60s --perf -v --verify \ --tlb-shootdown 0 \ --fault 0 \ --userfaultfd 0 \ --fork 0 \ --exec 0 \ --memfd 0 \ --numa 0 \ --pkey 0 \ --remap 0 \ --vm 0 \ --rmap 0 \ -x swap,pagemove (Note not all options shown here will work with --verify) Let me know what else I can run for validation? Do you know of any specific tests for validation of lazy mmu feature? >> For this patch please feel free to add: >> Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <[email protected]> >> >> >> CC: Venkat who also runs CI on linux Power HW for upstream testing :) > > Ack, will Cc you both in the next version. Sure. Thanks! -ritesh
