On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 11:21:50AM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: > > >On 1/22/26 10:00 PM, Wei Yang wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 11:18:52AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote: >> > On 1/1/26 03:07, Wei Yang wrote: >> > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2025 at 05:52:57PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On 12/31/25 5:42 PM, Wei Yang wrote: >> > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 05:45:48PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >> > > > > > From: Qi Zheng <[email protected]> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The PT_RECLAIM can work on all architectures that support >> > > > > > MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE, so make PT_RECLAIM depends on >> > > > > > MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > BTW, change PT_RECLAIM to be enabled by default, since nobody >> > > > > > should want >> > > > > > to turn it off. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <[email protected]> >> > > > > > --- >> > > > > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 - >> > > > > > mm/Kconfig | 9 ++------- >> > > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> > > > > > >> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > > > > index 80527299f859a..0d22da56a71b0 100644 >> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig >> > > > > > @@ -331,7 +331,6 @@ config X86 >> > > > > > select FUNCTION_ALIGNMENT_4B >> > > > > > imply IMA_SECURE_AND_OR_TRUSTED_BOOT if EFI >> > > > > > select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_NO_PATCHABLE >> > > > > > - select ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM if X86_64 >> > > > > > select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_SMT if SMP >> > > > > > select SCHED_SMT if SMP >> > > > > > select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SCHED_CLUSTER if SMP >> > > > > > diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig >> > > > > > index bd0ea5454af82..fc00b429b7129 100644 >> > > > > > --- a/mm/Kconfig >> > > > > > +++ b/mm/Kconfig >> > > > > > @@ -1447,14 +1447,9 @@ config ARCH_HAS_USER_SHADOW_STACK >> > > > > > The architecture has hardware support for userspace shadow >> > > > > > call >> > > > > > stacks (eg, x86 CET, arm64 GCS or RISC-V Zicfiss). >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -config ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM >> > > > > > - def_bool n >> > > > > > - >> > > > > > config PT_RECLAIM >> > > > > > - bool "reclaim empty user page table pages" >> > > > > > - default y >> > > > > > - depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM && MMU && SMP >> > > > > > - select MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> > > > > > + def_bool y >> > > > > > + depends on MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> > > > > > help >> > > > > > Try to reclaim empty user page table pages in paths other >> > > > > > than munmap >> > > > > > and exit_mmap path. >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, Qi >> > > > > >> > > > > I am new to PT_RECLAIM, when reading related code I got one question. >> > > > > >> > > > > Before this patch, we could have this config combination: >> > > > > >> > > > > CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE & !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM >> > > > > >> > > > > This means tlb_remove_table_free() is rcu version while >> > > > > tlb_remove_table_one() >> > > > > is semi rcu version. >> > > > > >> > > > > I am curious could we use rcu version tlb_remove_table_one() for >> > > > > this case? >> > > > > Use rcu version tlb_remove_table_one() if >> > > > > CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE. Is >> > > > > there some limitation here? >> > > > >> > > > I think there's no problem. The rcu version can also ensure that the >> > > > fast GUP works well. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Thanks for your quick response :-) >> > > >> > > And Happy New Year >> > > >> > > So my little suggestion is move the definition of >> > > __tlb_remove_table_one() >> > > under CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE. Do you thinks this would be more >> > > clear? >> > >> > >> > Do you mean >> > >> > diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c >> > index 2faa23d7f8d42..6aeba4bae68d2 100644 >> > --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c >> > +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c >> > @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static inline void tlb_table_invalidate(struct >> > mmu_gather >> > *tlb) >> > } >> > } >> > >> > -#ifdef CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE >> > static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one_rcu(struct rcu_head *head) >> > { >> > struct ptdesc *ptdesc; >> > >> > ? >> >> Sorry for the late reply. >> >> Yes, and maybe we can move the definition to the >> #ifdef CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE code block above, then to be next to >> tlb_remove_table_free(). >> >> So that we always have rcu version when CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE. > >LGTM, could you help submit an official patch? >
Sure. Since this is trivial cleanup, I will post it till next merge window. >Thanks, >Qi > >> >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers >> > >> > David >> -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
