[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <495A058C.7060105@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:27:08 +1100
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] vm_unmap_aliases: allow callers to inhibit TLB flush
Nick Piggin wrote:
> I have patches to move the tlb flushing to an asynchronous process context...
> but all tweaks to that (including flushing at vmap) are just variations on the
> existing flushing scheme and don't solve your problem, so I don't think we
> really need to change that for the moment (my patches are mainly for latency
> improvement and to allow vunmap to be usable from interrupt context).
>
Well, that's basically what I want - I want to use vunmap in an
interrupts-disabled context. Any other possibility of deferring tlb
flushes is pure bonus and not all that important.
But it also occurred to me that Xen doesn't use IPIs for cross-cpu TLB
flushes (it goes to hypercall), so it shouldn't be an issue anyway. I
haven't had a chance to look at what's really going on there.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists