On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 03:09:48PM -0600, Andrew Banman wrote: > On 12/5/17 6:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >Since uv_flush_tlb_others() implements flush_tlb_others() which is > >about flushing user mappings, we should use __flush_tlb_single(), > >which too is about flushing user mappings. > > > >Cc: Andrew Banman<[email protected]> > >Cc: Mike Travis<[email protected]> > >Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)<[email protected]> > >--- > > arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >--- a/arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c > >+++ b/arch/x86/platform/uv/tlb_uv.c > >@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ static void bau_process_message(struct m > > local_flush_tlb(); > > stat->d_alltlb++; > > } else { > >- __flush_tlb_one(msg->address); > >+ __flush_tlb_single(msg->address); > > stat->d_onetlb++; > > } > > stat->d_requestee++; > > This looks like the right thing to do. We'll be testing it and complain later > if > we find any problems, but I'm not expecting any since this patch looks to > maintain our status quo.
Well, with KPTI (the-patch-set-formerly-known-as-kaiser), there will be a distinct difference between the two. With KPTI __flush_tlb_one() would end up invalidating all kernel mappings while __flush_tlb_single() will end up only invalidating the user mappings of the current mm.
