On Wed, 2023-06-21 at 11:02 -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2023, at 7:46 AM, Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > @@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ static void collapse_and_free_pmd(struct > > mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *v > > addr + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE); > > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range); > > pmd = pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, addr, pmdp); > > - tlb_remove_table_sync_one(); > > + tlb_remove_table_sync_one(mm); > > Can’t pmdp_collapse_flush() have one additional argument > “freed_tables” > that it would propagate, for instance on x86 to flush_tlb_mm_range() > ? > Then you would not need tlb_remove_table_sync_one() to issue an > additional > IPI, no? > > It just seems that you might still have 2 IPIs in many cases instead > of > one, and unless I am missing something, I don’t see why. > Hi Nadav, Thanks for your comment. I think you are right and in some configurations 2 IPIs might occur. However I a am not really dealing with the thp code at the moment, This patch is about the mmu_gatherer and mostly dealing with IPIs sent via the other code path. Thanks, Yair
