From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46920A0C.3040400@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:12:28 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm() References: <1183952874.3388.349.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1183962981.5961.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1183963544.5961.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4691E64F.5070506@yahoo.com.au> <1183972349.5961.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4691FFDC.5020808@yahoo.com.au> <1183974458.5961.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1183974458.5961.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Linux Kernel list List-ID: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 19:29 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>They could just #define one to the other though, there are only a >>small >>number of them. Is there a downside to not making them distinct? i386 >>for example probably would just keep doing a tlb flush for fork and >>not >>want to worry about touching the tlb gather stuff. > > > But the tlb gather stuff just does ... a flush_tlb_mm() on x86 :-) But it still does the get_cpu of the mmu gather data structure and has to look in there and touch the cacheline. You're also having to do more work when unlocking/relocking the ptl etc. > I really think it's the right API -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org