[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170801164820.s46g2325kjjrymom@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:48:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, oleg@...hat.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, npiggin@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
stern@...land.harvard.edu, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending()
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:44:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 06:39:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Still this is all rather unsatisfactory. Either we should define
> > flush_tlb*() to imply a barrier when its not a no-op (sparc64/ppc-hash)
> > or simply make clear_tlb_flush_pending() an smp_store_release().
> >
> > I prefer the latter option.
> >
> > Opinions?
>
> I prefer the latter option too, since I'd like to relax the arm64 TLB
> flushing to have weaker barriers for the local case. Granted, that doesn't
> break the NUMA migration code, but it would make the barrier semantics of
> the TLB invalidation routines even more subtle if we were to define them
> generally.
Another 'fun' question, is smp_mb() strong enough to order against the
TLB invalidate? Because we really want to clear this flag _after_.
PowerPC for example uses PTESYNC before the TBLIE, so does a SYNC after
work? Ben?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists