[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86/flushtlb: remove flush_area check on system state
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:49:22AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 16.05.2022 16:31, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/flushtlb.h > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/flushtlb.h > > @@ -146,7 +146,8 @@ void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *, const void *va, > > unsigned int flags); > > #define flush_mask(mask, flags) flush_area_mask(mask, NULL, flags) > > > > /* Flush all CPUs' TLBs/caches */ > > -#define flush_area_all(va, flags) flush_area_mask(&cpu_online_map, va, > > flags) > > +#define flush_area(va, flags) \ > > + flush_area_mask(&cpu_online_map, (const void *)(va), flags) > > I have to admit that I would prefer if we kept the "_all" name suffix, > to continue to clearly express the scope of the flush. I'm also not > really happy to see the cast being added globally now. But there where no direct callers of flush_area_all(), so the name was just relevant for it's use in flush_area(). With that now gone I don't see a need for a flush_area_all(), as flush_area_mask() is more appropriate. > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/smp.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smp.c > > @@ -262,7 +262,8 @@ void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *mask, const void > > *va, unsigned int flags) > > { > > unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id(); > > > > - ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled()); > > + /* Local flushes can be performed with interrupts disabled. */ > > + ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled() || cpumask_equal(mask, cpumask_of(cpu))); > > Further down we use cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)), > apparently to also cover the case where mask is empty. I think > you want to do so here as well. Hm, yes. I guess that's cheaper than adding an extra: if ( cpumask_empty() ) return; check at the start of the function. > > if ( (flags & ~(FLUSH_VCPU_STATE | FLUSH_ORDER_MASK)) && > > cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask) ) > > I suppose we want a further precaution here: Despite the > !cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)) below I think we want to > extend what c64bf2d2a625 ("x86: make CPU state flush requests > explicit") and later changes (isolating uses of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE > from other FLUSH_*) did and exclude the use of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE > for the local CPU altogether. If we really want to exclude the use of FLUSH_VCPU_STATE for the local CPU, we might wish to add this as a separate ASSERT, so that such checking doesn't depend on !local_irq_is_enabled(): ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled() || cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)); ASSERT(!cpumask_subset(mask, cpumask_of(cpu)) || !(flags & FLUSH_VCPU_STATE)); > That's because if such somehow made > it into the conditional below here, it would still involve an IPI. Sorry, I'm confused by this: if the mask is empty there should be no IPI involved at all? And we shouldn't even get into the second conditional on the function. Thanks, Roger.
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |