[PATCH v2 3/4] arm64/mm: Elide tlbi in contpte_convert() under BBML2

[Mikołaj Lenczewski]

> > I think I understand what you mean. I agree that it is possible for a
> > concurrent walk to see an invalid TLBI state, if it is on the same TLB
> > that the repaint is happening on. For other TLBs, the flush has not yet
> > propagated our invalidated PTEs (from `__ptep_get_and_clear()`) though?
> 
> What I am saying is: if there is no TLB entry yet, HW will walk the page
> table to find no present PTE and trigger a fault.

Yes, that is 100% correct. I believe that this is unavoidable.

> > That invalidation will only be seen by other TLBs after the
> > `__flush_tlb_range()`, so we should save a few faults because only
> > "local" threads will ever see the invalid entry, as opposed to all
> > threads that try to read our modified range?
> 
> So what you say is, that deferring the flush means that if there is already
> a TLB entry, flushing deferred reduces the likelihood that a page table walk
> is triggered that could find no present PTE: consequently, reducing the
> likelihood that a page fault is triggered.
> 
> (I use the word likelihood, because I assume other action could result in a
> TLB entry getting flushed in the meantime, such as TLB entry reuse)
> 
> Correct?

Yes, and your language here is clearer than the original commit message
(and cover letter). Will amend it to be closer to your wording.

-- 
Kind regards,
Mikołaj Lenczewski