On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote: > From: Anshuman Khandual <khand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > The entire scheme of deferred TLB flush in reclaim path rests on the > fact that the cost to refill TLB entries is less than flushing out > individual entries by sending IPI to remote CPUs. But architecture > can have different ways to evaluate that. Hence apart from checking > TTU_BATCH_FLUSH in the TTU flags, rest of the decision should be > architecture specific. > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <khand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/] > Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyic...@hisilicon.com> > [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type] > Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.w...@huawei.com> > Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khand...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <bao...@kernel.org> > Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <x...@linux.alibaba.com> > Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agra...@bytedance.com>
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
