On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 06:59:01PM +, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On May 27, 2019, at 2:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:22:01AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >
> >> There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness:
> >> flush_tlb_mm_range compared
> On May 27, 2019, at 2:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:22:01AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness:
>> flush_tlb_mm_range compared loaded_mm and the mm to figure out if local
>> flush is needed. Instead,
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:22:01AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness:
> flush_tlb_mm_range compared loaded_mm and the mm to figure out if local
> flush is needed. Instead, the common code would look at the mm_cpumask()
> which should
arch_tlbbatch_flush() and flush_tlb_mm_range() have very similar code,
which is effectively the same. Extract the mutual code into a new
function flush_tlb_on_cpus().
There is one functional change, which should not affect correctness:
flush_tlb_mm_range compared loaded_mm and the mm to figure
4 matches
Mail list logo
