On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:39 PM Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Right, we don't know where the PAT invocation comes from and whether they > > are safe to omit flushing the cache. The module load code would be one > > obvious candidate. > > Module load just changes the writable/executable status, right? That shouldn't > need to flush in any case because it doesn't change the caching attributes. >
Indeed. module load should require a single TLB flush and no cache flushes. I don't think we're currently efficient enough to do it with a single TLB flush, but we should be able to...
