On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:16:49PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -816,8 +821,8 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> * doing a speculative memory access.
> */
> if (info->freed_tables) {
> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func,
> - (void *)info, 1);
> + on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
> + cpumask);
> } else {
> /*
> * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
> @@ -844,14 +849,15 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu))
> __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask);
> }
> - smp_call_function_many(cond_cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, 1);
> + on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
> + cpumask);
> }
> }
Surely on_each_cpu_mask() is more appropriate? There the compiler can do
the NULL propagation because it's on the same TU.
--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -821,8 +821,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi(
* doing a speculative memory access.
*/
if (info->freed_tables) {
- on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
- cpumask);
+ on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true);
} else {
/*
* Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
@@ -849,8 +848,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi(
if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu))
__cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask);
}
- on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
- cpumask);
+ on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true);
}
}
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
