On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:16:49PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote: > @@ -816,8 +821,8 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask, > * doing a speculative memory access. > */ > if (info->freed_tables) { > - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, > - (void *)info, 1); > + on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true, > + cpumask); > } else { > /* > * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(), > @@ -844,14 +849,15 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask, > if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu)) > __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask); > } > - smp_call_function_many(cond_cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, 1); > + on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true, > + cpumask); > } > } Surely on_each_cpu_mask() is more appropriate? There the compiler can do the NULL propagation because it's on the same TU. --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c @@ -821,8 +821,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi( * doing a speculative memory access. */ if (info->freed_tables) { - on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true, - cpumask); + on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true); } else { /* * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(), @@ -849,8 +848,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi( if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu)) __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask); } - on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true, - cpumask); + on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true); } }