On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Gleb Natapov <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This pull request adds tlb_gather_mmu() caller in S390 code, but 2b047252
> in your tree added another parameter to the function, so the patch bellow
> have to be applied during merge to resolve the conflicts. The patch was
> used in linux-next for awhile.
Hmm. Fine. Except:
> /* Reallocate the page tables with pgstes */
> mm->context.has_pgste = 1;
> - tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0);
> + tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE);
> page_table_realloc(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE);
> tlb_finish_mmu(&tlb, 0, -1);
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
Realistically, the begin/end arguments to tlb_gather_mmu() and
tlb_finish_mmu() should match. In fact, I considered getting rid of
the ones to tlb_finish_mmu() because they are kind of pointless these
days (but didn't, because I wanted to keep the patches minimal).
And in your case they don't. Which implies a certain amount of confusion.
It looks like it's not really a full-mm invalidate (it's not the final
TLB flush before getting rid of the VM), so I think "0, TASK_SIZE" is
correct. I just think I'm going to also change that tlb_finish_mmu()
to have the same "0, TASK_SIZE" range, so that it's all consistent.
It appears that s390 doesn't actually care about the range to
tlb_finish_mmu(), so this is pretty academic, but I thought I'd
mention it so that it doesn't come as a surprise that my merge
resolution looks different from your suggested one.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
