On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 07:09:48PM +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > Chuck Silvers <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 07:01:24PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > > > - the calls to pmap_update() should be moved along with the calls to > > > > pmap_kremove(). > > > > > > But not all pmap_kremove() are followed by a pmap_update() in the > > > initial code. Is it a bug ? > > > > yes. we don't currently defer TLB invalidations from pmap_kremove() on > > x86 (or probably any platform), but if we start doing that then the > > pmap_update()s are needed. > > That is not true. We do defer TLB invalidations/flush to pmap_update() on > x86 (see pmap_tlb.c mechanism) and MIPS.
ah, so we do. I guess I'm behind the times. -Chuck
