Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 May 2019 11:24:34 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] x86/mm/tlb: Refactor common code into flush_tlb_on_cpus() |
| |
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:22:01AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness: > flush_tlb_mm_range compared loaded_mm and the mm to figure out if local > flush is needed. Instead, the common code would look at the mm_cpumask() > which should give the same result.
> @@ -786,18 +804,9 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, > info = get_flush_tlb_info(mm, start, end, stride_shift, freed_tables, > new_tlb_gen); > > - if (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)) { > - lockdep_assert_irqs_enabled(); > - local_irq_disable(); > - flush_tlb_func_local(info, TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN); > - local_irq_enable(); > - } > - > - if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), cpu) < nr_cpu_ids) > - flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), info);
So if we want to double check that; we'd add:
WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(mm)) == (mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)));
right?
> + flush_tlb_on_cpus(mm_cpumask(mm), info); > > put_flush_tlb_info(); > - put_cpu(); > }
| |