[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1501636992.2792.139.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2017 11:23:12 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending()
On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 00:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > PowerPC for example uses PTESYNC before the TBLIE, so does a SYNC after
> > work? Ben?
> > From what I gather it is not. You have TLBSYNC for it. So the good news
tlbsync is pretty much a nop these days. ptesync is a strict superset
of sync and we have it after every tlbie.
> is that PPC-radix does all that and is fully serialized on the tlb
> flush. Not sure for the PPC-hash case.
>
> At the same time, smp_mb() is not sufficient on ARM either, they need a
> DSB barrier on both ends.
>
> So are we going to mandate tlb flush implementations are completely
> ordered ?
Cheers,
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists