[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc023b76c2d7685c067660d298613379c95b27e3.camel@wdc.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 17:36:41 +0000
From: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>
To: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
CC: "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"schwab@...ux-m68k.org" <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>,
"paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"allison@...utok.net" <allison@...utok.net>,
"anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
"palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] RISC-V: Optimize tlb flush path.
On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 07:45 -0700, hch@...radead.org wrote:
> Btw, for the next version it also might make sense to do one
> optimization at a time. E.g. the empty cpumask one as the
> first patch, the local cpu directly one next, and the threshold
> based full flush as a third.
ok sure. I will refactor my optimization patch and remove the base
patch(moving the functions from header to tlbflush.c) as you have
already sent it out.
--
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists