# Re: \[PATCH v6 07/11\] mm/mremap: Use range flush that does TLB and page walk cache flush

- From: Aneesh Kumar K.V \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-05-25 13:28:21 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2021/05/6508419
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-mm/2021/05/6508382/t.md

```text
Linus Torvalds [ref] writes:

> On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 11:04 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> [ref] wrote:
>>
>> Add new helper flush_pte_tlb_pwc_range() which invalidates both TLB and
>> page walk cache where TLB entries are mapped with page size PAGE_SIZE.
>
> So I dislike this patch for two reasons:
>
>  (a) naming.
>
> If the ppc people want to use crazy TLA's that have no meaning outside
> of the powerpc community, that's fine. But only in powerpc code.
>
> "pwc" makes no sense to me, or to anybody else that isn't intimately
> involved in low-level powerpc stuff. I assume it's "page walk cache",
> but honestly, outside of this area, PWC is mostly used for a specific
> type of webcam.
>
> So there's no way I'd accept this as-is, simply because of that.
> flush_pte_tlb_pwc_range() is simply not an acceptable name. You would
> have to spell it out, not use an obscure TLA.
>
> But I think you don't even want to do that, because of

How about flush_tlb_and_page_table_cache() ?

>
>  (b) is this even worth it as a public interface?
>
> Why doesn't the powerpc radix TLB flushing code just always flush the
> page table walking cache when the range is larger than a PMD?
>
> Once you have big flush ranges like that, I don't believe it makes any
> sense not to flush the walking cache too.

But such a large range invalidate doesn't imply we are freeing page
tables. Hence forcing a page table cache flush for large range
invalidate can have performance impact. ppc64 don't do a range page
table cache invalidate. Hence we will have to flush the full page table
cache.

>
> NOTE! This is particularly true as "flush the walking cache" isn't a
> well-defined operation anyway. Which _levels_ of the walking cache?
> Again, the size (and alignment) of the flush would actually tell you.
> A new boolean "flush" parameter does *NOT* tell that at all.
>
> So I think this new interface is mis-named, but I also think it's
> pointless. Just DTRT automatically when somebody asks for a flush that
> covers a PMD range (or a PUD range).
>
>               Linus

-aneesh
```