On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 12:19:59 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/16/20 12:15 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Aneesh reported that: > > > > tlb_flush_mmu() > > tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() > > tlb_flush() <-- #1 > > tlb_flush_mmu_free() > > tlb_table_flush() > > tlb_table_invalidate() > > tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() > > tlb_flush() <-- #2 > > > > does two TLBIs when tlb->fullmm, because __tlb_reset_range() will not > > clear tlb->end in that case. > > > > Observe that any caller to __tlb_adjust_range() also sets at least one > > of the tlb->freed_tables || tlb->cleared_p* bits, and those are > > unconditionally cleared by __tlb_reset_range(). > > > > Change the condition for actually issuing TLBI to having one of those > > bits set, as opposed to having tlb->end != 0. > > > > > We should possibly get this to stable too along with the first two > patches. I am not quiet sure if this will qualify for a stable backport. > Hence avoided adding Cc:stable@xxxxxxxxxx I'm not seeing any description of the user-visible runtime effects. Always needed, especially for -stable, please. It appears to be a small performance benefit? If that benefit was "large" and measurements were presented then that would be something we might wish to backport.
