Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "call_function_data".
2019 Jun 26
2
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...the "reason" to flush_tlb_info? It's OK-ish to imply
> it like this, but seems like it would be nicer and easier to track down
> the origins of these things if we did this at the caller.
I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help?
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
>> }
>> @@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
>> }
>>
&g...
2019 Jun 26
2
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...the "reason" to flush_tlb_info? It's OK-ish to imply
> it like this, but seems like it would be nicer and easier to track down
> the origins of these things if we did this at the caller.
I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help?
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, true, reason);
>> }
>> @@ -655,14 +658,21 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void *info)
>> flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN);
>> }
>>
&g...
2019 Jun 26
0
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
...to flush_tlb_info? It's OK-ish to imply
>> it like this, but seems like it would be nicer and easier to track down
>> the origins of these things if we did this at the caller.
>
> I prefer not to. I want later to inline flush_tlb_info into the same
> cacheline that holds call_function_data. Increasing the size of
> flush_tlb_info for no good reason will not help?
Well, flush_tlb_info is at 6/8ths of a cacheline at the moment.
call_function_data is 3/8ths. To me, that means we have some slack in
the size.
2019 Jun 13
4
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this
time, concurrently.
Add a static key to tell
2019 Jun 13
4
[PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs
concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current
flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need
to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future
work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this
time, concurrently.
Add a static key to tell