From: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@arm.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 11/13] arm64: mm: More flags for __flush_tlb_range()
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2026 08:51:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aV3RMohRCvzWnuwI@a079125.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251216144601.2106412-12-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Ryan,
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 02:45:56PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Refactor function variants with "_nosync", "_local" and "_nonotify" into
> a single __always_inline implementation that takes flags and rely on
> constant folding to select the parts that are actually needed at any
> given callsite, based on the provided flags.
>
> Flags all live in the tlbf_t (TLB flags) type; TLBF_NONE (0) continues
> to provide the strongest semantics (i.e. evict from walk cache,
> broadcast, synchronise and notify). Each flag reduces the strength in
> some way; TLBF_NONOTIFY, TLBF_NOSYNC and TLBF_NOBROADCAST are added to
> complement the existing TLBF_NOWALKCACHE.
It would be nice to have some notes added on the below for better clarity
* What a walk cache is and why we bother about them ?
* Why and how should we invalidate the walk caches ?
--
Linu Cherian.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-07 3:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-16 14:45 [PATCH v1 00/13] arm64: Refactor TLB invalidation API and implementation Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 01/13] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __tlbi_level macro as a C function Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 17:53 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-01-02 14:18 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-01-05 5:30 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-05 17:09 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 02/13] arm64: mm: Introduce a C wrapper for by-range TLB invalidation Ryan Roberts
2026-01-05 5:33 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-05 17:12 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 03/13] arm64: mm: Implicitly invalidate user ASID based on TLBI operation Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 18:01 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-01-02 14:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-18 6:30 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-18 7:05 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-18 15:47 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-02 14:30 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-01-05 13:03 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-05 5:34 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-05 17:13 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 04/13] arm64: mm: Push __TLBI_VADDR() into __tlbi_level() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-05 5:35 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 05/13] arm64: mm: Inline __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() into __tlbi_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-05 5:35 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 06/13] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __flush_tlb_range_op macro in C Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 07/13] arm64: mm: Simplify __TLBI_RANGE_NUM() macro Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 08/13] arm64: mm: Simplify __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess() Ryan Roberts
2025-12-17 8:12 ` Dev Jain
2026-01-02 15:23 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 09/13] arm64: mm: Refactor flush_tlb_page() to use __tlbi_level_asid() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-06 3:25 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 10/13] arm64: mm: Refactor __flush_tlb_range() to take flags Ryan Roberts
2026-01-06 4:51 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 11/13] arm64: mm: More flags for __flush_tlb_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-06 15:28 ` Linu Cherian
2026-01-12 11:52 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-01-07 3:21 ` Linu Cherian [this message]
2026-01-12 12:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 12/13] arm64: mm: Wrap flush_tlb_page() around ___flush_tlb_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-07 9:57 ` Linu Cherian
2025-12-16 14:45 ` [PATCH v1 13/13] arm64: mm: Provide level hint for flush_tlb_page() Ryan Roberts
2026-01-07 14:44 ` Linu Cherian
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aV3RMohRCvzWnuwI@a079125.arm.com \
--to=linu.cherian@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.