[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <AC05E45B-CC10-4362-9513-5704DE620A1D@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 12:45:55 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 05/13] x86/mm: Add barriers and document switch_mm-vs-flush synchronization
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>> Following this patch, if (current->active_mm != mm), flush_tlb_page() still
>> doesn’t call smp_mb() before checking mm_cpumask(mm).
>>
>> In contrast, flush_tlb_mm_range() does call smp_mb().
>>
>> Is there a reason for this discrepancy?
>
> Not that I can remember. Is the remote flush case likely to be racy?
You replied separately on another email that included a patch to fix
this case. It turns out smp_mb is not needed on flush_tlb_page, since
the PTE is always updated using an atomic operation. Yet, a compiler
barrier is still needed, so I added smp_mb__after_atomic instead.
Nadav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists