[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <194072ff-32af-4a5d-8e73-0a45f75290e7@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 09:29:33 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, nadav.amit@...il.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/tlb: use INVLPGB in flush_tlb_all
On 12/30/24 09:53, Rik van Riel wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -1074,6 +1074,12 @@ static void do_flush_tlb_all(void *info)
> void flush_tlb_all(void)
> {
> count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH);
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_INVLPGB)) {
> + guard(preempt)();
> + invlpgb_flush_all();
> + tlbsync();
> + return;
> + }
After seeing a few of these, I'd really prefer that the preempt and
tlbsync() logic be hidden in the invlpgb_*() helper, or *a* helper at least.
This would be a lot easier on the eyes if it were something like:
flushed = invlpgb_flush_all();
if (flushed)
return;
or even:
if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_INVLPGB)) {
invlpgb_flush_all();
return;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists