On 12/02/2024 13:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.02.24 14:05, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 12:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
__flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existi
On 12.02.24 14:05, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 12/02/2024 12:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
__flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existing flush_tlb_page()
arrangement. This allows calling __flush_
On 12/02/2024 12:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
>> __flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existing flush_tlb_page()
>> arrangement. This allows calling __flush_tlb_range_nosync() to elide the
On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
__flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existing flush_tlb_page()
arrangement. This allows calling __flush_tlb_range_nosync() to elide the
trailing DSB. Forthcoming "contpte" code will take adva
Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
__flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existing flush_tlb_page()
arrangement. This allows calling __flush_tlb_range_nosync() to elide the
trailing DSB. Forthcoming "contpte" code will take advantage of this
when clearing the young bit
