On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote: > From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The entire scheme of deferred TLB flush in reclaim path rests on the > fact that the cost to refill TLB entries is less than flushing out > individual entries by sending IPI to remote CPUs. But architecture > can have different ways to evaluate that. Hence apart from checking > TTU_BATCH_FLUSH in the TTU flags, rest of the decision should be > architecture specific. > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khandual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/] > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type] > Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <xhao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
