On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:48 PM Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs > >> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current > >> flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need > >> to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future > >> work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this > >> time, concurrently. > > > > Would it be straightforward to have a default PV flush_tlb_multi() > > that uses flush_tlb_others() under the hood? > > I prefer not to have a default PV implementation that should anyhow go away. > > I can create unoptimized untested versions for Xen and Hyper-V, if you want. > I think I prefer that approach. We should be able to get the maintainers to test it. I don't love having legacy paths in there, ahem, UV. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
