[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180919091517.GX24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 11:15:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Bin Yang <bin.yang@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Mark Gross <mark.gross@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86/mm/cpa: Use flush_tlb_all()
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:50:17AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Instead of open-coding it..
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 12 +-----------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c
> @@ -285,16 +285,6 @@ static void cpa_flush_all(unsigned long
> on_each_cpu(__cpa_flush_all, (void *) cache, 1);
> }
>
> -static void __cpa_flush_range(void *arg)
> -{
> - /*
> - * We could optimize that further and do individual per page
> - * tlb invalidates for a low number of pages. Caveat: we must
> - * flush the high aliases on 64bit as well.
> - */
> - __flush_tlb_all();
> -}
Hmm,.. so in patch #4 I do switch to flush_tlb_kernel_range(). What are
those high aliases that comment talks about?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists