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
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
* 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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo