linux-kernel - Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: What if a TLB flush needed to sleep?

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Luck, Tony wrote:

> 2) Is it feasible to rearrange the MM code so that we don't
> hold any locks while doing a TLB flush?  Or should I implement
> some sort of spin_only_semaphore?

The EMM notifier V2 patchset contains two patches that 
convert the immap_lock and the anon_vma lock to semaphores. After that
much of the TLB flushing is (tlb_finish_mmu, tlb_gather etc) is running 
without holding any spinlocks. There would need to be additional measures 
for flushing inherent in macros (like ptep_clear_flush). Currently the 
pte functions are called under pte lock.

--
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/