From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932120Ab2HXIPx (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 04:15:53 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:17306 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754776Ab2HXIPh (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 04:15:37 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,302,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="210298913" Message-ID: <50373815.2080704@intel.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:15:17 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Beulich CC: konrad.wilk@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: apparent regressions from TLB range flushing page set References: <503261F00200007800096710@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <503450C1.8070600@intel.com> <50349AB4020000780008A4B5@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <50349E45.3020502@intel.com> <5034F9510200007800096E97@nat28.tlf.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <5034F9510200007800096E97@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/22/2012 09:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 22.08.12 at 10:54, Alex Shi wrote: >> On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>>>>> Alex Shi 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 >