On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 06:27 +0200, h...@lst.de wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:01:24AM +, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The downside of this is that for every !cmask case in true SMP
> > (more
> > common probably) it will execute 2 extra cpumask instructions. As
> > tlbflush path is in
On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 04:01:24AM +, Atish Patra wrote:
> The downside of this is that for every !cmask case in true SMP (more
> common probably) it will execute 2 extra cpumask instructions. As
> tlbflush path is in performance critical path, I think we should favor
> more common case (SMP
On Thu, 2019-08-22 at 03:46 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 05:46:42PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > In RISC-V, tlb flush happens via SBI which is expensive. If the
> > local
> > cpu is the only cpu in cpumask, there is no need to invoke a SBI
> > call.
> >
> > Just do a
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 05:46:42PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> In RISC-V, tlb flush happens via SBI which is expensive. If the local
> cpu is the only cpu in cpumask, there is no need to invoke a SBI call.
>
> Just do a local flush and return.
>
> Signed-off-by: Atish Patra
> ---
>
In RISC-V, tlb flush happens via SBI which is expensive. If the local
cpu is the only cpu in cpumask, there is no need to invoke a SBI call.
Just do a local flush and return.
Signed-off-by: Atish Patra
---
arch/riscv/mm/tlbflush.c | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff
5 matches
Mail list logo