From: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:03:37 -0500 > 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> Great, thanks for testing. I'll merge this after I'm done testing on pre-sun4v chips. -- 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
