On 04/19/2013 12:41 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:46:26 -0500 > >> Why not pass mm into smp_flush_tlb_page() and use mm_cpumask(mm) as is >> done in smp_flush_tlb_pending()? I don't see why we wouldn't want to >> duplicate that logic to avoid cross calls to every cpu for every >> non-batched flush. > > Yes, I noticed that too when doing some tests and fixed that last night. > > I also noticed that 2 out of every 3 batch flushes are singletons, so > I optimized that case. That took a few seconds off of a parallel > kernel build. It looks good to me. I'm about to take off for a 3-day vacation, so I won't be able to rebuild and test this until Tuesday. I don't anticipate any problems because it is very nearly what I last tested with. Acked-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx> > > We should probably annotate the sparc specific transparent hugepage > pte loops in arch/sparc/mm/tlb.c with some lazy mmu calls, but I'll > leave that for another time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
