> On Jun 26, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:36 PM Dave Hansen <dave.han...@intel.com> wrote: >> On 6/12/19 11:48 PM, Nadav Amit wrote: >>> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on >>> a single local core, it is not optimized for this case. >> >> OK, so flush_tlb_multi() is optimized for flushing local+remote at the >> same time and is also (near?) the most optimal way to flush remote-only. >> But, it's not as optimized at doing local-only flushes. But, >> flush_tlb_on_cpus() *is* optimized for local-only flushes. > > Can we stick the optimization into flush_tlb_multi() in the interest > of keeping this stuff readable?
flush_tlb_on_cpus() will be much simpler once I remove the fallback path that is in there for Xen and hyper-v. I can then open-code it in flush_tlb_mm_range() and arch_tlbbatch_flush(). > > Also, would this series be easier to understand if there was a patch > to just remove the UV optimization before making other changes? If you just want me to remove it, I can do it. I don’t know who uses it and what the impact might be.
