Re: [Xen-devel] TLB flushing

2018-03-20 Thread Juergen Gross
On 20/03/18 10:56, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.03.18 at 10:29, wrote: >> On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote: While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some TLB invalidation problem I

Re: [Xen-devel] TLB flushing

2018-03-20 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 20.03.18 at 10:29, wrote: > On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote: >>> While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some >>> TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather >>> fishy

Re: [Xen-devel] TLB flushing

2018-03-20 Thread Juergen Gross
On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote: On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote: >> While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some >> TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather >> fishy to me. >> >> Is it correct for

Re: [Xen-devel] TLB flushing

2018-03-20 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote: > While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some > TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather > fishy to me. > > Is it correct for new_tlbflush_clock_period() to use FLUSH_TLB instead > of

[Xen-devel] TLB flushing

2018-03-20 Thread Juergen Gross
While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather fishy to me. Is it correct for new_tlbflush_clock_period() to use FLUSH_TLB instead of FLUSH_TLB_GLOBAL? While not being a problem in current code as both will