Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "__call_single_data".
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...flush_tlb_func_local,
> (void *)info, 1);
> }
> }
Do we really need that _local/_remote distinction? ISTR you had a patch
that frobbed flush_tlb_info into the csd and that gave space
constraints, but I'm not seeing that here (probably a wise, get stuff
merged etc..).
struct __call_single_data {
struct llist_node llist; /* 0 8 */
smp_call_func_t func; /* 8 8 */
void * info; /* 16 8 */
unsigned int flags; /* 24 4...
2019 Jul 22
2
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...flush_tlb_func_local,
> (void *)info, 1);
> }
> }
Do we really need that _local/_remote distinction? ISTR you had a patch
that frobbed flush_tlb_info into the csd and that gave space
constraints, but I'm not seeing that here (probably a wise, get stuff
merged etc..).
struct __call_single_data {
struct llist_node llist; /* 0 8 */
smp_call_func_t func; /* 8 8 */
void * info; /* 16 8 */
unsigned int flags; /* 24 4...
2019 Jul 22
0
[PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...)info, 1);
>> }
>> }
>
> Do we really need that _local/_remote distinction? ISTR you had a patch
> that frobbed flush_tlb_info into the csd and that gave space
> constraints, but I'm not seeing that here (probably a wise, get stuff
> merged etc..).
>
> struct __call_single_data {
> struct llist_node llist; /* 0 8 */
> smp_call_func_t func; /* 8 8 */
> void * info; /* 16 8 */
> unsigned int flags;...
2019 Jul 19
5
[PATCH v3 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes
[ Cover-letter is identical to v2, including benchmark results,
excluding the change log. ]
Currently, local and remote TLB flushes are not performed concurrently,
which introduces unnecessary overhead - each INVLPG can take 100s of
cycles. This patch-set allows TLB flushes to be run concurrently: first
request the remote CPUs to initiate the flush, then run it locally, and
finally wait for