Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 21:32:51 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        "linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 07:27:09PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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.