From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF40C7618F for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599A52054F for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="TqldDQQl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728787AbfGVTdE (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:33:04 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:37354 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726641AbfGVTdE (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:33:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zw0OzLY2qkyLgMJYZmR8YfjGW2oVP8VhhsbR5Yd/A7w=; b=TqldDQQlZ5ZIvVudiXOATvg8+6 99A+Mn8ucymBMPFhYx39j7RhwEqzKlskYs7uBA2fXig+Bxy7FrABNjSPOmH4GIcSvZhdDn6/2+ZsJ VUg6cZbX8pBbqtj2bpRyU9Hzp/nnIWZowUX2X0jd2bLQuCjO1IrSHkq7ZpEA2agi1YNRwmTRLLboh 67TOwpPTag0FdERZ4yZ/3XiWzg/K9OYALvLZ0986XmDMNqvH4LVlmKnnhtNsUUIsaVZ0eY6sn+2NN AtPJRQxOZ5Fl/h2Qzpox5vkgD09aPBondQwxq2tWQ+ZSFyHsqkgVr0smD7+AfjWNC6hLNxOuTf5H+ UtPXJ1DA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hpe3J-0006Hn-Eh; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 19:32:53 +0000 Received: by worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1F78980C59; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:32:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:32:51 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Nadav Amit Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , the arch/x86 maintainers , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , Sasha Levin , Borislav Petkov , Juergen Gross , Paolo Bonzini , Boris Ostrovsky , "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Message-ID: <20190722193251.GF6698@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20190719005837.4150-1-namit@vmware.com> <20190719005837.4150-5-namit@vmware.com> <20190722191433.GD6698@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <58DA0841-33C2-4D16-A671-08064A15001C@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <58DA0841-33C2-4D16-A671-08064A15001C@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:27:09PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > But then we can still do something like the below, which doesn't change > > things and still gets rid of that dual function crud, simplifying > > smp_call_function_many again. > Nice! I will add it on top, if you don’t mind (instead squashing it). Not at all. > The original decision to have local/remote functions was mostly to provide > the generality. > > I would change the last argument of __smp_call_function_many() from “wait” > to “flags” that would indicate whether to run the function locally, since I > don’t want to change the semantics of smp_call_function_many() and decide > whether to run the function locally purely based on the mask. Let me know if > you disagree. Agreed.