On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]>
>
> 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 <[email protected]>
> [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/[email protected]/]
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <[email protected]>
> [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type]
> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <[email protected]>
> Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <[email protected]>