[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C17BD8.6050609@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:55:20 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
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
Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Hm, awkward if flush_tlb_others doesn't IPI...
>>
>
> How can it avoid flushing the tlb on cpu [01]? It's it's
> gup_fast()ing a pte, it may as well load it into the tlb.
xen_flush_tlb_others uses a hypercall rather than an IPI, so none of the
logic which depends on there being an IPI will work.
>> Simplest fix is to make gup_get_pte() a pvop, but that does seem like
>> putting a red flag in front of an inner-loop hotspot, or something...
>>
>> The per-cpu tlb-flush exclusion flag might really be the way to go.
>
> I don't see how it will work, without changing Xen to look at the flag?
>
> local_irq_disable() is used here to lock out a remote cpu, I don't see
> why deferring the flush helps.
Well, no, not deferring. Making xen_flush_tlb_others() spin waiting for
"doing_gup" to clear on the target cpu. Or add an explicit notion of a
"pte update barrier" rather than implicitly relying on the tlb IPI
(which is extremely convenient when available...).
J
--
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