Il 26/08/2014 13:59, Christian Borntraeger ha scritto: > This patch is more of a cleanup - making clear whats going on. Its not needed for something special. > > It does two things: > - encapsulate the TLB flushing - Yes, a function hiding that would also work. We decided to reuse an existing interface > - serialize the TLB flushing against other control block updates. This is not necessary, it just happens as a consequence of being a request > > Agreed, it will be a bit slower (instead of setting a field we now also set and test a request bit). > Since we only need to do that in rare cases (specific control register updates via userspace and prefix setting) The performance does not matter at all. > > I can take out that patch and redo the tag, or leave it in. Let me know. You can leave it in, I just wanted to understand better. In fact, supporting KVM_REQ_FLUSH_TLB is in general a good thing since generic MMU notifier code refers to it. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
