[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh+dMSbeuEDatZbtycm9_RFyLe60nigQA8o5w0W_HkQSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:47:16 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG?] X86 arch_tlbbatch_flush() seems to be lacking
mm_tlb_flush_nested() integration
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 8:51 PM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Unless I am missing something, flush_tlb_batched_pending() is would be
> called and do the flushing at this point, no?
Ahh, yes.
That seems to be doing the right thing, although looking a bit more at
it, I think it might be improved.
At least in the zap_pte_range() case, instead of doing a synchronous
TLB flush if there are pending batched flushes, it migth be better if
flush_tlb_batched_pending() would set the "need_flush_all" bit in the
mmu_gather structure.
That would possibly avoid that extra TLB flush entirely - since
*normally* fzap_page_range() will cause a TLB flush anyway.
Maybe it doesn't matter.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists