Re: [PATCH 1/3] mmu_notifier: Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range()
From: Joerg Roedel
Date: Fri Jul 25 2014 - 17:57:30 EST
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:42:13PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 23:38:06 +0200
> Joerg Roedel <joro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I though about removing the need for invalidate_range_end too when
> > writing the patches, and possible solutions are
> > 1) Add mmu_notifier_invalidate_range() to all places where
> > start/end is called too. This might add some unnecessary
> > overhead.
> > 2) Call the invalidate_range() call-back from the
> > mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end too.
> > 3) Just let the user register the same function for
> > invalidate_range and invalidate_range_end
> > I though that option 1) adds overhead that is not needed (but it might
> > not be too bad, the overhead is an additional iteration over the
> > mmu_notifer list when there are no call-backs registered).
> > Option 2) might also be overhead if a user registers different functions
> > for invalidate_range() and invalidate_range_end(). In the end I came to
> > the conclusion that option 3) is the best one from an overhead POV.
> > But probably targeting better usability with one of the other options is
> > a better choice? I am open for thoughts and suggestions on that.
> Making the _end callback just do another TLB flush is fine too, but it
> would be nice to have the consistency of (1). I can live with either
> though, as long as the callbacks are well documented.
You are right, having this consistency would be good. The more I think
about it, the more it makes sense to go with option 2). Option 1) would
mean that invalidate_range is explicitly called right before
invalidate_range_end at some places. Doing this implicitly like in
option 2) is cleaner and less error-prone. And the list of mmu_notifiers
needs only be traversed once in invalidate_range_end(), so additional
overhead is minimal. I'll update patch 3 for this, unless there are
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/