From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E59C1975A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE157206F6 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:50:23 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DE157206F6 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 44FD66B000A; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 00:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 3FE606B000C; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 00:50:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 313D16B000D; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 00:50:23 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0219.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.219]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C896B000A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 00:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCAC5836 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:50:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76632658284.15.hill06_779ec6240e927 X-HE-Tag: hill06_779ec6240e927 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2763 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.190]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 04:50:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C4DF99AFB04254F4AEF3; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:50:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.220.25) by DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:49:47 +0800 Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/6] arm64: tlb: add support for TTL feature To: Peter Zijlstra CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20200324134534.1570-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200324150155.GH20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Zhenyu Ye Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 12:49:45 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200324150155.GH20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.173.220.25] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hi Peter, On 2020/3/24 23:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:45:28PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote: >> In order to reduce the cost of TLB invalidation, the ARMv8.4 TTL >> feature allows TLBs to be issued with a level allowing for quicker >> invalidation. This series provide support for this feature. >> >> Patch 1 and Patch 2 was provided by Marc on his NV series[1] patches, >> which detect the TTL feature and add __tlbi_level interface. > > I realy hate how it makes vma->vm_flags more important for tlbi. > Thanks for your review. The tlbi interfaces only have two parameters: vma and addr. If we try to not use vma->vm_flags, we may should have to add a parameter to some of these interfaces(such as flush_tlb_range), which are common to all architectures. I'm not sure if this is feasible, because this feature is only supported by ARM64 currently. Thanks, Zhenyu