[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080219230427.GB18912@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:04:27 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Robin Holt <holt@....com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
general@...ts.openfabrics.org,
Steve Wise <swise@...ngridcomputing.com>,
Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Kanoj Sarcar <kanojsarcar@...oo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
daniel.blueman@...drics.com, Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:27:25AM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all.
> >
> > The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed
> > for GRU _but_only_if_ range_end is called after releasing the
> > reference that the VM holds on the page. _begin will flush the GRU tlb
> > and at the same time it will take a mutex that will block further GRU
> > tlb-miss-interrupts (no idea how they manange those nightmare locking,
> > I didn't even try to add more locking to KVM and I get away with the
> > fact KVM takes the pin on the page itself).
>
> As it turns out, no actual mutex is required. _begin_ simply increments a
> count of active range invalidates, _end_ decrements the count. New TLB
> dropins are deferred while range callouts are active.
>
> This would appear to be racy but the GRU has special hardware that
> simplifies locking. When the GRU sees a TLB invalidate, all outstanding
> misses & potentially inflight TLB dropins are marked by the GRU with a
> "kill" bit. When the dropin finally occurs, the dropin is ignored & the
> instruction is simply restarted. The instruction will fault again & the TLB
> dropin will be repeated. This is optimized for the case where invalidates
> are rare - true for users of the GRU.
OK (thanks to Robin as well). Now I understand why you are using it,
but I don't understand why you don't defer new TLBs after the point
where the linux pte changes. If you can do that, then you look and
act much more like a TLB from the point of view of the Linux vm.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists