From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
To: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Cc: tglx@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@kernel.org,
muchun.song@linux.dev, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
bigeasy@linutronix.de, clrkwllms@kernel.org,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] x86/mm: Allow preemption while waiting for kernel TLB flushes
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2026 19:36:32 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <B1576E3F-E75E-4EBD-93C2-65042017C78A@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <278e53d1-e0ca-4886-a762-ca98d1a21a69@bytedance.com>
> On 5 Oct 2026, at 10:48, Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> This keeps the common descriptor and threshold policy, while allowing
> preemption during the final IPI completion wait. It does not yet
> provide the broader consolidation you suggested, but retains the
> existing stride_shift field for future kernel stride support.
This one looks better. I’m not pushing for consolidation right now,
but considering the complexity of invlpgb, TCE and stride handling,
I think it makes better sense to look forward a future where the
kernel and the user TLB invalidation paths would be unified.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-05 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-05 5:57 Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 5:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] x86/mm: Account for remote kernel TLB flush requests Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 5:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] x86/mm: Share the full TLB flush dispatch Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 5:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] x86/mm: Extract the TLB range flush threshold check Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 5:57 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] x86/mm: Decouple kernel TLB flushes from flush_tlb_info Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 5:57 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] x86/mm: Re-enable preemption before waiting for kernel TLB flushes Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 6:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] x86/mm: Allow preemption while " Nadav Amit
2026-10-05 7:48 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-10-05 16:36 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=B1576E3F-E75E-4EBD-93C2-65042017C78A@gmail.com \
--to=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®