From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from verein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE3832FBF for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 06:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 4B7F367373; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:36:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 08:36:58 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: palmerdabbelt@google.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , guoren@kernel.org, Anup Patel , Arnd Bergmann , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, guoren@linux.alibaba.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 2/2] riscv: Use use_asid_allocator flush TLB Message-ID: <20210531063658.GB1143@lst.de> References: <20210527070903.GA32653@lst.de> X-Mailing-List: linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 04:42:37PM -0700, palmerdabbelt@google.com wrote: >> >> Also the non-ASID code switches to a global flush once flushing more >> than a single page. It might be worth documenting the tradeoff in the >> code. > > For some reason I thought we'd written this down in the commentary of teh > ISA manual as the suggested huersitic here, but I can't find it so maybe > I'm wrong. If it's actually there it would be good to point that out, > otherwise some documentation seems fine as it'll probably become a tunable > at some point anyway. The real question is why is the heuristic different for the ASID vs non-ASID case? I think that really need a comment. > LGTM. I took the first one as IMO they're really distnict issues, LMK if > you want to re-spin this one or if I should just take what's here. What distinct issue? The fact that the new code is buggy and uses rather non-optimal calling conventions?