[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bf005e2-7ac7-f1cf-eca1-0e152dd912a7@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:36:50 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] x86/mm/tlb: Open-code on_each_cpu_cond_mask() for
tlb_is_not_lazy()
On 7/18/19 5:58 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -865,7 +893,7 @@ void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &batch->cpumask)) {
> lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled();
> local_irq_disable();
> - flush_tlb_func_local(&full_flush_tlb_info);
> + flush_tlb_func_local((void *)&full_flush_tlb_info);
> local_irq_enable();
> }
This looks like superfluous churn. Is it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists