On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 13:36 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 09:25:20AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > I think this choice makes sense: it allows embedding the wait state > > from > > the initial notifier call into the pass structure. Patch [6] shows > > this > > by attaching the issued TLB invalidation fences to the pass. Since > > a > > single notifier may be invoked multiple times with different ranges > > but > > the same seqno, > > That should be explained, but also seems to be a bit of a different > issue.. > > If the design is really to only have two passes and this linked list > is about retaining state then there should not be so much freedom to > have more passes.
Actually the initial suggestion was two passes only. Then I thought I saw a use-case for even three passes and added the multi-pass thing, but I think it turned out we didn't have such a use-case. IMO we could restrict it to two-pass. Matthew, that should be completely OK for the SVM use-case, right? /Thomas > > Jason
