On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:36:46AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:19:26PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Some architectures are less precise than others in tracking which
> > CPUs are running a given process due to ASIDs, though this is
> > thought to be a non-problem:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=126716090413065&w=2
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=126716262815202&w=2
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> On arm64, we *never* touch mm_cpumask, so it will always be empty. The only
> thing we could potentially use it for is non-broadcast TLB invalidation if
> the mm was only active on a single CPU, but when I implemented that we
> pretty much never hit that case. I was hoping fork()+exec() would trigger it
> (e.g. scripts), but the scheduler treats both of those as rebalancing points
> so the temporary ASID before the exec always has two CPUs set in its mask.
OK, so it sounds like we should ignore ->mm_cpumask except possibly
for an architecture-specific optimization, and rely solely on ->mm
in the absence of such optimizations, right?
Thanx, Paul
