On 08.08.2025 15:46, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> On 8/5/25 5:20 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.07.2025 17:58, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>> +/* Unlock the flush and do a P2M TLB flush if necessary */
>>> +void p2m_write_unlock(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * The final flush is done with the P2M write lock taken to avoid
>>> + * someone else modifying the P2M wbefore the TLB invalidation has
>> Nit: Stray 'w'.
>>
>>> + * completed.
>>> + */
>>> + p2m_tlb_flush_sync(p2m);
>> Wasn't the plan to have this be conditional?
>
> Not really, probably, I misunderstood you before.
>
> Previously, I only had|p2m_force_tlb_flush_sync()| here, instead of
> |p2m_tlb_flush_sync()|, and the latter includes a condition check on
> |p2m->need_flush|.
Just to re-iterate my point: Not every unlock will require a flush. Hence
why I expect the flush to be conditional upon there being an indication
that some change was done that requires flushing.
Jan
