On 1/9/25 22:07, Nadav Amit wrote: > This is not my reading. I think that this reading assumes that besides > the broadcast, some new “range flush” was added to the TLB. My guess > is that this not the case, since presumably it would require a different > TLB structure (and who does 2 changes at once 😉 ). Reading it again, I think you're right. The INVLPG and INVLPGB language is too close. It would also _talk_ about invalidating a range rather than just incrementing an address to invalidate. I think the key thing we need to decide is whether to treat a single INVLPGB(stride=8) more like a single INVLPGB or eight INVLPGBs. Measuring a bunch of invalidation looks should tell us that.
