[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121117145015.GF16441@x1.osrc.amd.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:50:15 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
florian@...nwrt.org, Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86,mm: drop TLB flush from ptep_set_access_flags
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:06:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > On current AMD64 processors,
>
> Can you verify that this is true for older cpu's too (ie the old
> pre-64-bit ones, say K6 and original Athlon)?
Albeit with a slight delay, the answer is yes: all AMD cpus
automatically invalidate cached TLB entries (and intermediate walk
results, for that matter) on a #PF.
I don't know, however, whether it would be prudent to have some sort of
a cheap assertion in the code (cheaper than INVLPG %ADDR, although on
older cpus we do MOV CR3) just in case. This should be enabled only with
DEBUG_VM on, of course...
HTH.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
--
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