Re: apparent regressions from TLB range flushing page set

[Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>]

On 08/22/2012 09:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:

>>>> On 22.08.12 at 10:54, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>>
>>>> On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :)
>>>
>>> I had agreed to it being done the right way, and I had pointed out the
>>> problem once. I can't say for sure that I looked at the most recent rev
>>> closely enough to spot the issue still being unfixed.
>>>
>>>>> For one, while TLB_FLUSH_ALL gets passed as 'end' argument to
>>>>> flush_tlb_others(), the Xen code was made to check its 'start'
>>>>> parameter.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean need the following change? --untested.
>>>
>>> Yes. I'd question though whether for that special case it shouldn't be
>>> start _and_ end to get passed the special value.
>>
>>
>> Actually the special value is already there in old code.
>> so, what's your meaning of the question?
> 
> I'm saying that I'd rather see
> 
> #define flush_tlb_mm(mm)	flush_tlb_mm_range(mm, TLB_FLUSH_ALL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL, 0UL)


It bring logical confusing, and is no much help.
flush_tlb_mm_range still will call:
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);

So, since we already fix code error, we'd better not to do this change.


>

> Jan
>