On 8/11/25 9:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
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.
The flush is actually conditional; the condition is inside
|p2m_tlb_flush_sync()|:
void p2m_tlb_flush_sync(struct p2m_domain *p2m)
{
if ( p2m->need_flush )
p2m_force_tlb_flush_sync(p2m);
}
~ Oleksii
