Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()

[Nick Piggin]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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

To elaborate on this one... I realise for this one that in the kernel
where this is currently used everything is non-preemptible anyway
because of the ptl. And I also realise that -rt kernel issues don't
really have a bearing on mainline kernel.. but the generic
implementation of this API is fundamentally used to operate on a
per-cpu data structure that is only required when tearing down page
tables. That makes this necessarily non-preemptible.

Which shows that it adds more restrictions that may not otherwise be
required.


> 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

OK, the *form* of the API is fine, I have no arguments. I just don't
know why you have to reuse the same thing. If you provided a new set of
names then you can trivially do a generic implementation which compiles
to exactly the same code for all architectures right now. That seems to
me like the right way to go...

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/