On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 09:44:01AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 01:36:17PM -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. > > I’ll let Thomas weigh in on whether we really need more than two passes; > my feeling is that two passes are likely sufficient. It’s also worth > noting that the linked list has an added benefit: the notifier tree only > needs to be walked once (a small time-complexity win).
You may end up keeping the linked list just with no way to add a third pass. Jason
