On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 06:42:36PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > On Mon, 2025-08-18 at 13:36 -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 09:25:20AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > > > I think this choice makes sense: it allows embedding the wait state > > > from > > > the initial notifier call into the pass structure. Patch [6] shows > > > this > > > by attaching the issued TLB invalidation fences to the pass. Since > > > a > > > single notifier may be invoked multiple times with different ranges > > > but > > > the same seqno, > > > > That should be explained, but also seems to be a bit of a different > > issue.. > > > > If the design is really to only have two passes and this linked list > > is about retaining state then there should not be so much freedom to > > have more passes. > > Actually the initial suggestion was two passes only. Then I thought I > saw a use-case for even three passes and added the multi-pass thing, > but I think it turned out we didn't have such a use-case. IMO we could > restrict it to two-pass. Matthew, that should be completely OK for the > SVM use-case, right? >
Yea, I just replied that 2 passes should be sufficient. Matt > /Thomas > > > > > > Jason >
