lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 26 Jun 2019 16:39:00 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <>
CC:     Dave Hansen <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        LKML <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>, Borislav Petkov <>,
        X86 ML <>, Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Dave Hansen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Optimize local TLB flushes

> On Jun 26, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Andy Lutomirski <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:36 PM Dave Hansen <> wrote:
>> On 6/12/19 11:48 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on
>>> a single local core, it is not optimized for this case.
>> OK, so flush_tlb_multi() is optimized for flushing local+remote at the
>> same time and is also (near?) the most optimal way to flush remote-only.
>> But, it's not as optimized at doing local-only flushes.  But,
>> flush_tlb_on_cpus() *is* optimized for local-only flushes.
> Can we stick the optimization into flush_tlb_multi() in the interest
> of keeping this stuff readable?

flush_tlb_on_cpus() will be much simpler once I remove the fallback
path that is in there for Xen and hyper-v. I can then open-code it in
flush_tlb_mm_range() and arch_tlbbatch_flush().

> Also, would this series be easier to understand if there was a patch
> to just remove the UV optimization before making other changes?

If you just want me to remove it, I can do it. I don’t know who uses it and
what the impact might be.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists