From: Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
jroedel@suse.de, Jay.Cornwall@amd.com, Oded.Gabbay@amd.com,
John.Bridgman@amd.com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com,
ben.sander@amd.com, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range()
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:57:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140725215718.GO14017@8bytes.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140725144213.773474e4@jbarnes-desktop>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:42:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:38:06 +0200
> Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org> wrote:
> > I though about removing the need for invalidate_range_end too when
> > writing the patches, and possible solutions are
> >
> > 1) Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() to all places where
> > start/end is called too. This might add some unnecessary
> > overhead.
> >
> > 2) Call the invalidate_range() call-back from the
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end too.
> >
> > 3) Just let the user register the same function for
> > invalidate_range and invalidate_range_end
> >
> > I though that option 1) adds overhead that is not needed (but it might
> > not be too bad, the overhead is an additional iteration over the
> > mmu_notifer list when there are no call-backs registered).
> >
> > Option 2) might also be overhead if a user registers different functions
> > for invalidate_range() and invalidate_range_end(). In the end I came to
> > the conclusion that option 3) is the best one from an overhead POV.
> >
> > But probably targeting better usability with one of the other options is
> > a better choice? I am open for thoughts and suggestions on that.
>
> Making the _end callback just do another TLB flush is fine too, but it
> would be nice to have the consistency of (1). I can live with either
> though, as long as the callbacks are well documented.
You are right, having this consistency would be good. The more I think
about it, the more it makes sense to go with option 2). Option 1) would
mean that invalidate_range is explicitly called right before
invalidate_range_end at some places. Doing this implicitly like in
option 2) is cleaner and less error-prone. And the list of mmu_notifiers
needs only be traversed once in invalidate_range_end(), so additional
overhead is minimal. I'll update patch 3 for this, unless there are
other opinions.
Joerg
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-25 21:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-24 14:35 [PATCH 0/3] mmu_notifier: Allow to manage CPU external TLBs Joerg Roedel
2014-07-24 14:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() Joerg Roedel
2014-07-25 20:16 ` Jesse Barnes
2014-07-25 20:43 ` Jerome Glisse
2014-07-25 21:38 ` Joerg Roedel
2014-07-25 21:42 ` Jesse Barnes
2014-07-25 21:57 ` Joerg Roedel [this message]
2014-07-25 21:47 ` Jerome Glisse
2014-07-24 14:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] mmu_notifier: Call mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() from VMM Joerg Roedel
2014-07-24 14:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] mmu_notifier: Add the call-back for mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() Joerg Roedel
2014-07-24 14:44 ` [PATCH 0/3] mmu_notifier: Allow to manage CPU external TLBs Andrea Arcangeli
2014-07-24 23:33 ` Andrew Morton
2014-07-25 3:10 ` Sander, Ben
2014-07-25 7:47 ` Joerg Roedel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-07-29 16:18 [PATCH 0/3 v2] " Joerg Roedel
2014-07-29 16:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() Joerg Roedel
2014-09-09 15:43 [PATCH 0/3 v3] mmu_notifier: Allow to manage CPU external TLBs Joerg Roedel
2014-09-09 15:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() Joerg Roedel
2014-10-28 17:13 [PATCH 0/3 v4] mmu_notifier: Allow to manage CPU external TLBs Joerg Roedel
2014-10-28 17:13 ` [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() Joerg Roedel
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=20140725215718.GO14017@8bytes.org \
--to=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=Jay.Cornwall@amd.com \
--cc=John.Bridgman@amd.com \
--cc=Oded.Gabbay@amd.com \
--cc=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ben.sander@amd.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).