lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    Subject> global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.
    On 2008-02-05 13:53, Zachary Amsden wrote:
    > On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:44 +0700, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
    >> On 2008-02-05 13:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> >> 1) To have compiled it I had to replace global_flush_tlb()
    >> >> call with __flush_tlb_all() and still guessing was it(?) a correct
    >> >> replacment at all :-)
    >> >
    >> > it is not;
    >>
    >> I see, thanks. What would be the correct one? ;-)
    >
    > global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.
    >
    Looking at the kernel's patch I don't think so:

    -void global_flush_tlb(void)
    -{
    - struct list_head l;
    - struct page *pg, *next;
    -
    - BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
    -
    - spin_lock_irq(&cpa_lock);
    - list_replace_init(&df_list, &l);
    - spin_unlock_irq(&cpa_lock);
    - flush_map(&l);
    - list_for_each_entry_safe(pg, next, &l, lru) {
    - list_del(&pg->lru);
    - clear_bit(PG_arch_1, &pg->flags);
    - if (PageReserved(pg) || !cpu_has_pse || page_private(pg) != 0)
    - continue;
    - ClearPagePrivate(pg);
    - __free_page(pg);
    - }
    -}
    -
    -EXPORT_SYMBOL(global_flush_tlb);

    --


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-05 07:59    [W:0.021 / U:3.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site