[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <24E0FC81-810E-44FD-9494-CA9374E495B5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:01:48 +0200
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mayuresh Chitale <mchitale@...tanamicro.com>,
Vincent Chen <vincent.chen@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] riscv: tlb flush improvements
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 3:30 PM, Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@...osinc.com> wrote:
>
> + on_each_cpu_mask(cmask,
> + __ipi_flush_tlb_range_asid,
> + &ftd, 1);
>
Unrelated, but having fed on the stack might cause it to be unaligned to
the cacheline, which in x86 we have seen introduces some overhead.
Actually, it is best not to put it on the stack, if possible to reduce
cache traffic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists