On 15 May 2012 19:18, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 19:15 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: >> So this should go to linux-arch... >> >> On 15 May 2012 18:55, Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Not every flush_tlb_mm execution moment is really need to evacuate all >> > TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole >> > process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later >> > accessing. >> > >> > This patch is changing flush_tlb_mm(mm) to flush_tlb_mm(mm, start, end) >> > in cases. >> >> What happened with Peter's comment about using flush_tlb_range for this? >> >> flush_tlb_mm() API should just stay unchanged AFAIKS. >> >> Then you need to work out the best way to give range info to the tlb/mmu gather >> API. Possibly passing in the rage for that guy is OK, which x86 can >> then implement >> as flush range. > > Right, most archs that have tlb_flush_range() do range tracking in > mmu_gather. Our TLB ops fully support that, there's absolutely no need > to go change the interface for thos. It could be warranted to change tlb_flush_mmu to a range API to avoid doing the per-entry tracking which those architectures do? The callers have range available easily, so ignoring those could be noop for generic helpers. -- 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
