On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 11:23 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > static inline void arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
> > {
> > - struct ppc64_tlb_batch *batch = &__get_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> > + struct ppc64_tlb_batch *batch = &get_cpu_var(ppc64_tlb_batch);
> > +
> > + if (batch->active) {
> > + if (batch->index)
> > + __flush_tlb_pending(batch);
> > + batch->active = 0;
> > + }
>
> Can index be > 0 if active == 0 ? I though not, which means you don't
> need to add a test on active, do you ?
True I guess, but like this we avoid a write, doesn't really matter I
suspect.
> I'm also pondering whether we should just stick something in the
> task/thread struct and avoid that whole per-cpu manipulation including
> the stuff in process.c in fact.
Can do, I can add batching similar to the generic code to the
thread_info thingy.
> Heh, maybe it's time to introduce thread vars ? :-)
Heh, that seems like a real good way to waste a lot of memory fast ;-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
