Re: [PATCH RFC v3] x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier

2016-08-29 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sat, 2016-08-27 at 10:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:42:15 -0700 > > "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > > > > Why grabbing a lock instead of cmpxchg? > > > > ... and some more cleanups later, this might actually be > > good to merge, assuming it w

Re: [PATCH RFC v3] x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier

2016-08-27 Thread Linus Torvalds
Yeah, with those small fixes from Ingo, I definitely don't think this looks hacky at all. This all seems to be exactly what we should always have done. The only remaining comment is that I'd make that lazy_tlb_can_skip_flush() function just use a switch table for the tlbstate comparisons rather th

Re: [PATCH RFC v3] x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier

2016-08-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:42:15 -0700 > "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > > Why grabbing a lock instead of cmpxchg? > > ... and some more cleanups later, this might actually be > good to merge, assuming it works for Benjamin :) > > ---8<--- LGTM in principle (it's a pretty cl

[PATCH RFC v3] x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier

2016-08-25 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:42:15 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > Why grabbing a lock instead of cmpxchg? ... and some more cleanups later, this might actually be good to merge, assuming it works for Benjamin :) ---8<--- Subject: x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Lazy TLB mode can resul