linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] arm, mm: Convert arm to generic tlb

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20120517183139.GA31838@arm.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 May 2012 19:31:39 +0100
From:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To:	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] arm, mm: Convert arm to generic tlb

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:00:12PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:28:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 10:51 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:30:23AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > Another minor thing is that on newer ARM processors (Cortex-A15) we
> > > > > need the TLB shootdown even on UP systems, so tlb_fast_mode should
> > > > > always return 0. Something like below (untested):
> > > > 
> > > > No Catalin, we need this for virtually all ARMv7 CPUs whether they're UP
> > > > or SMP, not just for A15, because of the speculative prefetch which can
> > > > re-load TLB entries from the page tables at _any_ time.
> > > 
> > > Hmm,. so this is mostly because of the confusion/coupling between
> > > tlb_remove_page() and tlb_remove_table() I guess. Since I don't see the
> > > freeing of the actual pages being a problem with speculative TLB
> > > reloads, just the page-tables.
> > > 
> > > Should we introduce a tlb_remove_table() regardless of
> > > HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE which always queues the tables regardless of
> > > tlb_fast_mode()? 
> > 
> > BTW, looking at your tlb-unify branch, does tlb_remove_table() call
> > tlb_flush/tlb_flush_mmu before freeing the tables?  I can only see
> > tlb_remove_page() doing this. On ARM, even UP, we need the TLB flushing
> > after clearing the pmd and before freeing the pte page table (and
> > ideally doing it less often than at every pte_free_tlb() call).
> 
> Catalin,
> 
> The way TLB shootdown stuff works is that _every_ single bit of memory
> which gets freed, whether its a page or a page table, gets added to a
> list of pages to be freed.
> 
> So, the sequence is:
> - remove pte/pmd/pud/pgd pointers
> - add pages, whether they be pages pointed to by pte entries or page tables
>   to be freed to a list
> - when list is sufficiently full, invalidate TLBs
> - free list of pages
> 
> That means the pages will not be freed, whether it be a page mapped
> into userspace or a page table until such time that the TLB has been
> invalidated.
> 
> For page tables, this is done via pXX_free_tlb(), which then calls out
> to the arch specific __pXX_free_tlb(), which ultimately then hands the
> page table over to tlb_remove_page() to add to the list of to-be-freed
> pages.

I know that already, not sure why you explained it again (but it's good
for future reference).

My point was that if we move to HAVE_RCU_FREE_TLB, the other
architectures doing this are calling tlb_remove_table() instead of
tlb_remove_page() in __p??_free_tlb(). And tlb_remove_table() does not
do any TLB maintenance when it can no longer queue pages (batch table
overflow).

-- 
Catalin
--
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/