Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:23:49 -0700
From:   Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
To:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        anshuman.khandual@arm.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, peterz@infradead.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        darren@os.amperecomputing.com, yangyicong@hisilicon.com,
        huzhanyuan@oppo.com, lipeifeng@oppo.com, zhangshiming@oppo.com,
        guojian@oppo.com, realmz6@gmail.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
        xhao@linux.alibaba.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/4] mm/tlbbatch: Introduce
 arch_tlbbatch_should_defer()
Message-ID: <ZLrNNcApzNLp9pdj@arm.com>
References: <20230717131004.12662-1-yangyicong@huawei.com>
 <20230717131004.12662-2-yangyicong@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230717131004.12662-2-yangyicong@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> 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 <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> [https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com/]
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>
> [Rebase and fix incorrect return value type]
> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>
> Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>

Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>