Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:44:14 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending() |
| |
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:39:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Still this is all rather unsatisfactory. Either we should define > flush_tlb*() to imply a barrier when its not a no-op (sparc64/ppc-hash) > or simply make clear_tlb_flush_pending() an smp_store_release(). > > I prefer the latter option. > > Opinions?
I prefer the latter option too, since I'd like to relax the arm64 TLB flushing to have weaker barriers for the local case. Granted, that doesn't break the NUMA migration code, but it would make the barrier semantics of the TLB invalidation routines even more subtle if we were to define them generally.
Will
| |