[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4994c1220ce4103bb354da46699a77c3a5dfa310.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 21:33:11 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
peterz@...radead.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
zhengqi.arch@...edance.com, thomas.lendacky@....com, kernel-team@...a.com,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT"
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
jannh@...gle.com, mhklinux@...look.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/12] x86,tlb: do targeted broadcast flushing from
tlbbatch code
On Mon, 2025-01-20 at 20:56 +0200, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
> Then in switch_mm_irqs_off(), b
>
> if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.pending_tlbsync))
> tlbsync();
>
> Note that when switch_mm_irqs_off() is called due to context switch
> from
> context_switch(), finish_task_switch() has still not took place, so
> the
> task cannot be scheduled on other cores.
>
>
That would certainly work.
I'll add that as a separate patch, which the x86
maintainers can either accept or leave out.
I'm not sure what's worse, making reclaim non-migratable,
or adding an extra branch (we can probably avoid a cache
line miss) to switch_mm_irqs_off.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists