Re: [PATCH v3 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate

[Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>]

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:38 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 7/18/19 5:58 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> +struct tlb_state_shared {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We can be in one of several states:
>> +	 *
>> +	 *  - Actively using an mm.  Our CPU's bit will be set in
>> +	 *    mm_cpumask(loaded_mm) and is_lazy == false;
>> +	 *
>> +	 *  - Not using a real mm.  loaded_mm == &init_mm.  Our CPU's bit
>> +	 *    will not be set in mm_cpumask(&init_mm) and is_lazy == false.
>> +	 *
>> +	 *  - Lazily using a real mm.  loaded_mm != &init_mm, our bit
>> +	 *    is set in mm_cpumask(loaded_mm), but is_lazy == true.
>> +	 *    We're heuristically guessing that the CR3 load we
>> +	 *    skipped more than makes up for the overhead added by
>> +	 *    lazy mode.
>> +	 */
>> +	bool is_lazy;
>> +};
>> +DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct tlb_state_shared, cpu_tlbstate_shared);
> 
> Could we get a comment about what "shared" means and why we need shared
> state?
> 
> Should we change 'tlb_state' to 'tlb_state_private’?

I don’t feel strongly about either one. I perferred the one that is likely
to cause fewer changes and potential conflicts. Anyhow, I would add a better
comment as you asked for.

So it is really up to you.