On 24/03/2022 14:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 04:52:18PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
+#define tlb_remove_huge_tlb_entry(h, tlb, ptep, address) \
+ do { \
+ unsigned long _sz = huge_page_size(h); \
+ if (_sz == CONT_PTE_SIZE) \
+ tlb_flush_pte_range(tlb, address, _sz); \
+ else if (_sz == PMD_SIZE) \
+ tlb_flush_pmd_range(tlb, address, _sz); \
+ else if (_sz == CONT_PMD_SIZE) \
+ tlb_flush_pmd_range(tlb, address, _sz); \
+ else if (_sz == PUD_SIZE) \
+ tlb_flush_pud_range(tlb, address, _sz); \
+ __tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, ptep, address); \
+ } while (0)
It occurs to me that perhaps this can be written like:
unsigned long _sz = huge_page_size(h);
if (_sz >= P4D_SIZE)
tlb_flush_p4d_range(tlb, address, _sz);
else if (_sz >= PUD_SIZE)
tlb_flush_pud_range(tlb, address, _sz);
else if (_sz >= PMD_SIZE)
tlb_flush_pmd_range(tlb, address, _sz);
else
tlb_flush_pte_range(tlb, address, _sz);
__tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, ptep, address);
And then it can still be generic..
Thanks Peter,
My concern with that would be the CONT_PMD_SIZE case would result in a
call to tlb_flush_pte_range rather than tlb_flush_pmd_range causing some
of the level parameters to be different.
Would that cause an issue?
Cheers,
--
Steve
