[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160802231229.GE32028@t510>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:12:30 -0400
From: Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, lwoodman@...hat.com,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Add barriers and document switch_mm()-vs-flush
synchronization follow-up
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:27:06PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > While backporting 71b3c126e611 ("x86/mm: Add barriers and document switch_mm()-vs-flush synchronization")
> > we stumbled across a possibly missing barrier at flush_tlb_page().
>
> I too noticed it and submitted a similar patch that never got a response [1].
>
As far as I understood Andy's rationale for the original patch you need
a full memory barrier there in flush_tlb_page to get that cache-eviction
race sorted out.
Regards,
-- Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists