[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171130161844.v7ynfdggo6g7j5l5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:18:44 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/24] x86/mm: Allow flushing for future ASID switches
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 07:51:17AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/30/2017 07:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:49:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> @@ -338,24 +366,23 @@ static inline void __native_flush_tlb_single(unsigned long addr)
> >>
> >> static inline void __flush_tlb_all(void)
> >> {
> >> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PGE)) {
> >> __flush_tlb_global();
> >> + } else {
> >> __flush_tlb();
> >> + tlb_flush_shared_nonglobals();
> > I do however think this one is superfluous; if we do not have PGE we
> > also do not have PCID and every CR3 switch flushes everything.
>
> I tried to sprinkle these around at all the sites that did non-global
> kernel flushes. In the case that it's superfluous !KAISER, it's a noop
> anyway. In the (currently unsupported) case that we *do* need it, well,
> we need it.
I'm confused. When would we need it there?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists