On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 09:10:01PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
From: Anshuman Khandual <redacted>
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 <redacted>
[https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20171101101735.2318-2-khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ (local)]
Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <redacted>
[Rebase and fix incorrect return value type]
Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Xin Hao <redacted>
Tested-by: Punit Agrawal <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>