[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C16A48.4090303@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:40:24 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> Disabling the interrupt will prevent the tlb flush IPI from coming
>>> in and flushing this cpu's tlb, but I don't see how it will prevent
>>> some other cpu from actually updating the pte in the pagetable,
>>> which is what we're concerned about here.
>>
>> The thread that cleared the pte holds the pte lock and is now waiting
>> for the IPI. The thread that wants to update the pte will wait for
>> the pte lock, thus also waits on the IPI and gup_fast()'s
>> local_irq_enable(). I think.
>
> But hasn't it already done the pte update at that point?
>
> (I think this conversation really is moot because the kernel never
> does P->P pte updates any more; its always P->N->P.)
I thought you were concerned about cpu 0 doing a gup_fast(), cpu 1 doing
P->N, and cpu 2 doing N->P. In this case cpu 2 is waiting on the pte lock.
>>> Is this the only reason to disable interrupts?
>>
>> Another comment says it also prevents pagetable teardown.
>
> We could take a reference to the mm to get the same effect, no?
>
Won't stop munmap().
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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