Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 May 2002 09:23:29 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.5.17 |
| |
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Russell King wrote: > > We seem to have inconsistent cache handling in the new TLB shootdown stuff.
Not surprising - I've worried only about changing the TLB architecture on x86, where the caches do not matter.
> I think we have two options - either leave the cache handling up to > tlb_start_vma() (in which case, flush_cache_range and flush_cache_mm > are redundant and should be removed) or let it be up to the caller > of tlb_gather_mmu to call the right cache handling function.
I think I'd prefer the "let the tlb functions handle caches too" approach.
For many architectures, that means "tlb_start/end_vma()". Others can do it in "tlb_remove_tlb_entry()".
There's another issue: I think we should aim to get rid of the old "flush_tlb_xxxx()" functions, and aim to rely entirely on the TLB gathering. vmalloc/vfree might be the one special case (and I suspect vfree() is going to get a lot slower to make sure it does the right thing wrt TLB's).
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |