[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200522154925.GE26492@gaia>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:49:25 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@...wei.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
npiggin@...il.com, arnd@...db.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
maz@...nel.org, suzuki.poulose@....com, tglx@...utronix.de,
yuzhao@...gle.com, Dave.Martin@....com, steven.price@....com,
broonie@...nel.org, guohanjun@...wei.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, arm@...nel.org,
xiexiangyou@...wei.com, prime.zeng@...ilicon.com,
zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com, kuhn.chenqun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] arm64: Add tlbi_user_level TLB invalidation helper
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 09:56:53PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> @@ -190,8 +196,8 @@ static inline void flush_tlb_page_nosync(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long addr = __TLBI_VADDR(uaddr, ASID(vma->vm_mm));
>
> dsb(ishst);
> - __tlbi(vale1is, addr);
> - __tlbi_user(vale1is, addr);
> + __tlbi_level(vale1is, addr, 0);
> + __tlbi_user_level(vale1is, addr, 0);
> }
This one remains with a level 0 throughout the series. Is this
intentional? If we can't guarantee the level here, better to use the
non-level __tlbi().
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists