[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw2KMm=E9OYQkhJqL+9pmUoaqdO9m4jJZFw3Jr4=Br4Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:05 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: PCID and TLB flushes (was: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1)
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> I think we can do it without that by keeping the mapping in reverse as
> I sort of outlined -- for each cpu, store a mapping from mm to pcid.
> When things fall out of the list, no big deal.
So you do it by just having a per-cpu array of (say, 64 entries), you
now end up having to search that every time you do a task switch to
find the asid for the mm. And even then you've limited yourself to
just six bits, because doing the same for a possible full 12-bit asid
would not be possible.
It's actually much simpler if you just do it the other way.
But hey, maybe you do something clever and can figure out a good way
to do it. I'm just saying that we *have* done this before on other
architectures, and it has worked. I think ARM has another asid
implementation in arch/arm/mm/context.c. I really think it would be a
good idea to copy some existing case rather than make up a new one.
It's not like asid's are unusual. It's arguably x86 that was unusual
in _not_ having them.
Linus
--
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