From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] arm64: mm: Simplify __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess()
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:30:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b10fd873-6de9-445a-a43a-cd588b433f42@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250711161732.384-10-will@kernel.org>
On 11/07/2025 17:17, Will Deacon wrote:
> __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess() is unnecessarily complicated:
>
> - It takes a 'start', 'end' and 'pages' argument, whereas it only
> needs 'pages' (which the caller has computed from the other two
> arguments!).
>
> - It erroneously compares 'pages' with MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES when
> the system doesn't support range-based invalidation but the range to
> be invalidated would result in fewer than MAX_DVM_OPS invalidations.
>
> Simplify the function so that it no longer takes the 'start' and 'end'
> arguments and only considers the MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES threshold on
> systems that implement range-based invalidation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Does this warrant a Fixes: tag?
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 20 ++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 8618a85d5cd3..2541863721af 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -470,21 +470,13 @@ do { \
> #define __flush_s2_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, tlb_level) \
> __flush_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, 0, tlb_level, kvm_lpa2_is_enabled());
>
> -static inline bool __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(unsigned long start,
> - unsigned long end, unsigned long pages, unsigned long stride)
> +static inline bool __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(unsigned long pages,
> + unsigned long stride)
> {
> - /*
> - * When the system does not support TLB range based flush
> - * operation, (MAX_DVM_OPS - 1) pages can be handled. But
> - * with TLB range based operation, MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES
> - * pages can be handled.
> - */
> - if ((!system_supports_tlb_range() &&
> - (end - start) >= (MAX_DVM_OPS * stride)) ||
> - pages > MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES)
> + if (system_supports_tlb_range() && pages > MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES)
> return true;
>
> - return false;
> + return pages >= (MAX_DVM_OPS * stride) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> }
I'm still not sure I totally get this... Aren't these really 2 separate
concepts? MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES is the max amount of VA that can be handled by a
single tlbi-by-range (and due to implementation, the largest range that can be
handled by the loop in __flush_tlb_range_op()). Whereas MAX_DVM_OPS is the max
number of tlbi instrcutions you want to issue with the PTL held? Perhaps it is
better to split these out; For the range case, calculate the number of ops you
actually need and compare with MAX_DVM_OPS?
>
> static inline void __flush_tlb_range_nosync(struct mm_struct *mm,
> @@ -498,7 +490,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range_nosync(struct mm_struct *mm,
> end = round_up(end, stride);
> pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if (__flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(start, end, pages, stride)) {
> + if (__flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(pages, stride)) {
> flush_tlb_mm(mm);
> return;
> }
> @@ -547,7 +539,7 @@ static inline void flush_tlb_kernel_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end
> end = round_up(end, stride);
> pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if (__flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(start, end, pages, stride)) {
> + if (__flush_tlb_range_limit_excess(pages, stride)) {
> flush_tlb_all();
> return;
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-14 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-11 16:17 [PATCH 00/10] arm64: Replace TLB invalidation preprocessor macros with C functions Will Deacon
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 01/10] arm64: mm: Introduce a C wrapper for by-level TLB invalidation helpers Will Deacon
2025-07-14 8:38 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 02/10] arm64: mm: Introduce a C wrapper for by-range " Will Deacon
2025-07-14 8:26 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 03/10] arm64: mm: Implicitly invalidate user ASID based on TLBI operation Will Deacon
2025-07-14 8:44 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-14 9:46 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 04/10] arm64: mm: Remove unused 'tlbi_user' argument from __flush_tlb_range_op() Will Deacon
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 05/10] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __tlbi_level macro in C Will Deacon
2025-07-14 9:02 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 06/10] arm64: mm: Simplify __TLBI_RANGE_NUM() macro Will Deacon
2025-07-14 9:06 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-15 5:13 ` Dev Jain
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 07/10] arm64: mm: Push __TLBI_VADDR() into __tlbi_level() Will Deacon
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 08/10] arm64: mm: Inline __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() into __tlbi_range() Will Deacon
2025-07-14 9:17 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 09/10] arm64: mm: Simplify __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess() Will Deacon
2025-07-14 9:30 ` Ryan Roberts [this message]
2025-07-15 5:38 ` Dev Jain
2025-07-11 16:17 ` [PATCH 10/10] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __flush_tlb_range_op macro in C Will Deacon
2025-07-11 18:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-07-13 13:35 ` Will Deacon
2025-07-14 9:44 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-10 12:29 ` [PATCH 00/10] arm64: Replace TLB invalidation preprocessor macros with C functions Ryan Roberts
2025-12-12 12:12 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-12-12 20:13 ` Will Deacon
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=b10fd873-6de9-445a-a43a-cd588b433f42@arm.com \
--to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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®