On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 08:15:40PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > 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> There is only one arch implementation given and if an arch knows that the flush should not be deferred then why would it implement support in the first place? I'm struggling to see the point of the patch. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
