[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB4BFFD.5030508@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:08:13 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Chen Liqin <liqin.chen@...plusct.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] zsmalloc: support zsmalloc to ARM, MIPS, SUPERH
On 05/17/2012 05:32 PM, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:05:17AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> About local_flush_tlb_kernel_range,
>> If architecture is very smart, it could flush only tlb entries related to vaddr.
>> If architecture is smart, it could flush only tlb entries related to a CPU.
>> If architecture is _NOT_ smart, it could flush all entries of all CPUs.
>> So, it would be best to support both portability and performance.
>>
> ..
>
>> Need double check about supporting local_flush_tlb_kernel_range
>> in ARM, MIPS, SUPERH maintainers. And I will Ccing unicore32 and
>> score maintainers because arch directory in those arch have
>> local_flush_tlb_kernel_range, too but I'm very unfamiliar with those
>> architecture so pass it to maintainers.
>> I didn't coded up dumb local_flush_tlb_kernel_range which flush
>> all cpus. I expect someone need ZSMALLOC will implement it easily in future.
>>
>
> One thing you might consider is providing a stubbed definition that wraps
> to flush_tlb_kernel_range() in the !SMP case, as this will extend your
> testing coverage for staging considerably.
>
> Once you exclude all of the non-SMP platforms, you're left with the
> following:
>
> - blackfin: doesn't count, no TLB to worry about.
> - hexagon: seems to imply that the SMP case uses thread-based
> CPUs that share an MMU, so no additional cost.
> - ia64: Does a global flush, which already has a FIXME comment.
> - m32r, mn10300: local_flush_tlb_all() could be wrapped.
> - parisc: global flush?
> - s390: Tests the cpumask to do a local flush, otherwise has a
> __tlb_flush_local() that can be wrapped.
> - sparc32: global flush
> - sparc64: __flush_tlb_kernel_range() looks like a local flush.
> - tile: does strange hypervisory things, presumably global.
> - x86: has a local_flush_tlb() that could be wrapped.
>
> Which doesn't look quite that bad. You could probably get away with a
> Kconfig option for optimized local TLB flushing or something, since
> single function Kconfig options seem to be all the rage these days.
I missed this sentence.
Thanks for very helpful comment, Paul!
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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