[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1532866319.28585.12.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:11:59 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, will.daecon@....com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] mm,sched: conditionally skip lazy TLB mm
refcounting
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 21:21 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> wrote:
> > Conditionally skip lazy TLB mm refcounting. When an architecture
> > has
> > CONFIG_ARCH_NO_ACTIVE_MM_REFCOUNTING enabled, an mm that is used in
> > lazy TLB mode anywhere will get shot down from exit_mmap, and there
> > in no need to incur the cache line bouncing overhead of refcounting
> > a lazy TLB mm.
>
> Unless I've misunderstood something, this patch results in idle tasks
> whose active_mm has been freed still having active_mm pointing at
> freed memory.
Patch 9/10 is supposed to ensure that the lazy TLB CPUs get
switched to init_mm before an mm is freed. No CPU should ever
have its active_mm pointing at a freed mm.
Your message made me re-read the code, and now I realize that
leave_mm does not actually do that.
Looking at the other callers of leave_mm, I might not be the
only one surprised by that; xen_drop_mm_ref comes to mind.
I guess I should some code to leave_mm to have it actually
clear active_mm and call the conditional refcount drop helper
function.
Does that clear up the confusion?
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists