On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 20:53, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + /* > > + * TLB consistency for global ASIDs is maintained with broadcast TLB > > + * flushing. The TLB is never outdated, and does not need flushing. > > + */ > > This is another case where I think using the word "broadcast" is not > helping. > > Here's the problem: INVLPGB is a "INVLPG" that's broadcast. So the name > INVLPGB is fine. INVLPGB is *a* way to broadcast INVLPG which is *a* > kind of TLB invalidation. > > But, to me "broadcast TLB flushing" is a broad term. In arguably > includes INVLPGB and normal IPI-based flushing. Just like the function > naming in the earlier patch, I think we need a better term here. If we wanna refer to invlpgb-type things without saying invlpgb, and as you pointed out "broadcast" is too general, I think we just need the terminology to refer to the fact it's a special "hardware" feature. So "hardware-synchronized" or something like that. The former would abbrev to hwsync in identifiers, without any loss of clarity.
