From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C9EAC41513 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:24:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=xMFkd6qsGewoDdDt3EVlsXETYvPRaS5RyGv5pvsRzHA=; b=WKWtSMRBdMdinb xd6LiVwiU7WUfCywljGntBE0N4tC+LQFH2uRsE6XNA4mkrdMLkzCLBoGaKKrjD05pK4/9mv/dK/i5 BL/G6MwYUR3DlwBDhTS8a4poLPci57RiLUmRBDoDOkRPU/yK6eWiVGAZkWxnU9Z2DdwZKdhKxJ5Vz SoIHT84XOUWRkEOoVI07m4ZF7FecKEMnyWNQN2KqtHTOonAhU2WhkHB7oCdeDRtWjYcVUBj8XZY/N B0owmqbgLhFPeY441ebBV4EOugnMAuIc4ruyhHltvDGDFGrQ9YzvMEJWsg7OGvYzJcJAcpVRIUR5k naqB2smKEJ8Wfe0WJrYw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qMunI-00EqBH-3A; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:24:00 +0000 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.96 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1qMunF-00Eq9T-1M; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:23:58 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64AFE61D70; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:23:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 41432C433C9; Fri, 21 Jul 2023 18:23:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:23:49 -0700 From: Catalin Marinas To: Yicong Yang Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, will@kernel.org, anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, peterz@infradead.org, arnd@arndb.de, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, darren@os.amperecomputing.com, yangyicong@hisilicon.com, huzhanyuan@oppo.com, lipeifeng@oppo.com, zhangshiming@oppo.com, guojian@oppo.com, realmz6@gmail.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, xhao@linux.alibaba.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, Anshuman Khandual , Barry Song Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] mm/tlbbatch: Introduce arch_tlbbatch_should_defer() Message-ID: References: <20230717131004.12662-1-yangyicong@huawei.com> <20230717131004.12662-2-yangyicong@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230717131004.12662-2-yangyicong@huawei.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20230721_112357_496356_0C8E98DB X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 10.41 ) X-BeenThere: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-riscv" Errors-To: linux-riscv-bounces+linux-riscv=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote: > From: Anshuman Khandual > > The entire scheme of deferred TLB flush in reclaim path rests on the > fact that the cost to refill TLB entries is less than flushing out > individual entries by sending IPI to remote CPUs. But architecture > can have different ways to evaluate that. Hence apart from checking > TTU_BATCH_FLUSH in the TTU flags, rest of the decision should be > architecture specific. > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual > [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com/] > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang > [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type] > Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual > Reviewed-by: Barry Song > Reviewed-by: Xin Hao > Tested-by: Punit Agrawal Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv