[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806191403510.1684@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 14:05:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
cc: x86@...nel.org, devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE}
hypercalls when possible
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> * Fills in gva_list starting from offset. Returns the number of items added.
> @@ -93,10 +95,19 @@ static void hyperv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpus,
> if (cpumask_equal(cpus, cpu_present_mask)) {
> flush->flags |= HV_FLUSH_ALL_PROCESSORS;
> } else {
> + /*
> + * It is highly likely that VP ids are in ascending order
> + * matching Linux CPU ids; Check VP index for the highest CPU
> + * in the supplied set to see if EX hypercall is required.
> + * This is just a best guess but should work most of the time.
TLB flushing based on 'best guess' and 'should work most of the time' is
not a brilliant approach.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists