On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:57 PM Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:13 PM Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com> wrote:
> >> When a shootdown is initiated, the initiating CPU has cycles to burn as
> >> it waits for the responding CPUs to receive the IPI and acknowledge it.
> >> In these cycles it is better to flush the user page-tables using
> >> INVPCID, instead of deferring the TLB flush.
> >>
> >> The best way to figure out whether there are cycles to burn is arguably
> >> to expose from the SMP layer when an acknowledgment is received.
> >> However, this would break some abstractions.
> >>
> >> Instead, use a simpler solution: the initiating CPU of a TLB shootdown
> >> would not defer PTI flushes. It is not always a win, relatively to
> >> deferring user page-table flushes, but it prevents performance
> >> regression.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <na...@vmware.com>
> >> ---
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 1 +
> >> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 10 +++++++++-
> >> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >> b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >> index da56aa3ccd07..066b3804f876 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> >> @@ -573,6 +573,7 @@ struct flush_tlb_info {
> >> unsigned int initiating_cpu;
> >> u8 stride_shift;
> >> u8 freed_tables;
> >> + u8 shootdown;
> >
> > I find the name "shootdown" to be confusing. How about "more_than_one_cpu”?
>
> I think the current semantic is more of “includes remote cpus”. How about
> calling it “local_only”, and negating its value?
Sure.
