Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 10:45:20AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: >> > How about another patch to remove the ppc impl too? Then it can be a two >> > patches series. >> >> BTW, I don't think we could remove the ppc implementation since it is >> different from the generic pmdp_collapse_flush(), particularly for the >> hash part IIUC. >> >> The generic version calls flush_tlb_range() -> hash__flush_tlb_range() >> for hash, but the hash call is actually no-op. The ppc version calls >> hash__pmdp_collapse_flush() -> flush_tlb_pmd_range(), which does >> something useful. > > One thing I found interesting (and also a bit confused..) is that the ppc > code used the name flush_tlb_pmd_range() to "flush tlb range in pte level", > which is kind of against the tlb API design.. > > The generic tlb API has a very close function called flush_pmd_tlb_range() > which is only used to do pmd-level flushing, while here the ppc version of > flush_tlb_pmd_range() is actually flush_tlb_range() in the generic API. > > Agreed that it may worth having a look from ppc developers. > It is actually flushing the hash page table entries. I will rename flush_tlb_pmd_range to flush_hash_table_pmd_range(). -aneesh
