[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cc8596e6-8c6c-eb0c-4d59-ee3b97fe881f@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:33:36 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Banman <abanman@....com>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB mode and TLB freshness
tracking
On 06/13/2017 09:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> - if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &batch->cpumask))
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &batch->cpumask)) {
> + local_irq_disable();
> flush_tlb_func_local(&info, TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN);
> + local_irq_enable();
> + }
> +
Could you talk a little about why this needs to be local_irq_disable()
and not preempt_disable()? Is it about the case where somebody is
trying to call flush_tlb_func_*() from an interrupt handler?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists