[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EE4EBF32-0C5C-4112-B158-FDA6B8801421@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:43:45 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Change barriers before TLB flushes to smp_mb__after_atomic
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>> When (current->active_mm != mm), flush_tlb_page() does not perform a
>> memory barrier. In practice, this memory barrier is not needed since in
>> the existing call-sites the PTE is modified using atomic-operations.
>> This patch therefore modifies the existing smp_mb in flush_tlb_page to
>> smp_mb__after_atomic and adds the missing one, while documenting the new
>> assumption of flush_tlb_page.
>>
>> In addition smp_mb__after_atomic is also added to
>> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending, since it makes a similar implicit assumption
>> and omits the memory barrier.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> mm/rmap.c | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> index fe9b9f7..2534333 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ out:
>> preempt_enable();
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Calls to flush_tlb_page must be preceded by atomic PTE change or
>> + * explicit memory-barrier.
>> + */
>> void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
>> {
>> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>> @@ -259,8 +263,11 @@ void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
>> leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
>>
>> /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> - smp_mb();
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> }
>> + } else {
>> + /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> }
>>
>> if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 307b555..60ab0fe 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -613,6 +613,9 @@ static void set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> {
>> struct tlbflush_unmap_batch *tlb_ubc = ¤t->tlb_ubc;
>>
>> + /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> +
>> cpumask_or(&tlb_ubc->cpumask, &tlb_ubc->cpumask, mm_cpumask(mm));
>> tlb_ubc->flush_required = true;
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>
> This looks fine for x86, but I have no idea whether other
> architectures are okay with it. akpm? mm folks?
Ping?
Note that this patch adds two missing barriers.
Thanks,
Nadav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists