On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 01:36:17PM -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.
I’ll let Thomas weigh in on whether we really need more than two passes; my feeling is that two passes are likely sufficient. It’s also worth noting that the linked list has an added benefit: the notifier tree only needs to be walked once (a small time-complexity win). Matt > > Jason
