[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250214194013.GA2198@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:40:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, zhengqi.arch@...edance.com,
nadav.amit@...il.com, thomas.lendacky@....com, kernel-team@...a.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jackmanb@...gle.com,
jannh@...gle.com, mhklinux@...look.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
Manali Shukla <Manali.Shukla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] x86/mm: use INVLPGB for kernel TLB flushes
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:35:40AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 2/13/25 08:13, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > - if (info->end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL)
> > + if (broadcast_kernel_range_flush(info))
> > + ; /* Fall through. */
> > + else if (info->end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL)
> > on_each_cpu(do_flush_tlb_all, NULL, 1);
> > else
> > on_each_cpu(do_kernel_range_flush, info, 1);
>
> We've got to find a better name for broadcast_kernel_range_flush().
> Because IPIs are broadcast too. The naming makes it confusing. Why would
> be broadcast, and then start trying IPIs that are also broadcast?
IIRC the more general name is indeed broadcast tlbi; as in other
architectures use this naming to mean this very thing too.
But yes, I see the confusion, but I don't think changing the naming
really helps a lot here :-/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists