Re: [PATCH 6/7] acpi, apei, ghes: Make unmapping functionality independent from architecture.

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:35:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 01:32:27PM +0100, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > On 13.05.2014 22:11, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:14:34PM +0200, Tomasz Nowicki wrote:
> > >> Till now __flush_tlb_one was used for unmapping virtual memory which
> > >> is x86 specific function. Replace it with more generic
> > >> flush_tlb_kernel_range.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> > >> ---
> > >>   drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c |    4 ++--
> > >>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> index aaf8db3..624878b 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> > >> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ static void ghes_iounmap_nmi(void __iomem *vaddr_ptr)
> > >>
> > >>   	BUG_ON(vaddr != (unsigned long)GHES_IOREMAP_NMI_PAGE(base));
> > >>   	unmap_kernel_range_noflush(vaddr, PAGE_SIZE);
> > >> -	__flush_tlb_one(vaddr);
> > >> +	flush_tlb_kernel_range(vaddr, vaddr + PAGE_SIZE);
> > >>   }
> > >>
> > >>   static void ghes_iounmap_irq(void __iomem *vaddr_ptr)
> > >> @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ static void ghes_iounmap_irq(void __iomem *vaddr_ptr)
> > >>
> > >>   	BUG_ON(vaddr != (unsigned long)GHES_IOREMAP_IRQ_PAGE(base));
> > >>   	unmap_kernel_range_noflush(vaddr, PAGE_SIZE);
> > >> -	__flush_tlb_one(vaddr);
> > >> +	flush_tlb_kernel_range(vaddr, vaddr + PAGE_SIZE);
> > >
> > > flush_tlb_kernel_range() does send an IPI to every core on x86 which is
> > > much more expensive than what __flush_tlb_one does.
> > >
> > > Fairer it would be if you added a __flush_tlb_one() version for arm
> > > which does flush_tlb_kernel_range for you.
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks for comment. I am not sure if maintainers will allow me to add 
> > sth like __flush_tlb_one() for arm/arm64. Let me ask them directly. 
> > Catalin, Russell what do you think?
> 
> I don't have the background for this, but if you don't need broadcasting
> (if this avoids IPIs on x86, I guess you don't) then why not use
> local_flush_tlb_kernel_range instead?

Is this generic enough (we don't have it on arm64)?

-- 
Catalin