[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190514114343.GN2589@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 13:43:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"jstancek@...hat.com" <jstancek@...hat.com>,
"minchan@...nel.org" <minchan@...nel.org>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force
flush
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 02:01:34AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> > index 99740e1dd273..cc251422d307 100644
> > --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> > +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> > @@ -251,8 +251,9 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> > * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
> > */
> > if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
> > + tlb->fullmm = 1;
> > __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> > - __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
> > + tlb->freed_tables = 1;
> > }
> >
> > tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
>
>
> I think that this should have set need_flush_all and not fullmm.
Difficult, mmu_gather::need_flush_all is arch specific and not everybody
implements it.
And while mmu_gather::fullmm isn't strictly correct either; we can
(ab)use it here, because at tlb_finish_mmu() time the differences don't
matter anymore.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists