[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D74A89DF-0D89-4AB6-8A6B-93BEC9A83595@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:26:50 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Adin Scannell <ascannell@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/tlb, x86/mm: Support invalidating TLB caches for
RCU_TABLE_FREE
at 1:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:39:59PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> The only problem with this approach is that we've lost track of the granule
>> size by the point we get to the tlb_flush(), so we can't adjust the stride of
>> the TLB invalidations for huge mappings, which actually works nicely in the
>> synchronous case (e.g. we perform a single invalidation for a 2MB mapping,
>> rather than iterating over it at a 4k granule).
>>
>> One thing we could do is switch to synchronous mode if we detect a change in
>> granule (i.e. treat it like a batch failure).
>
> We could use tlb_start_vma() to track that, I think. Shouldn't be too
> hard.
Somewhat unrelated, but I use this opportunity that TLB got your attention
for something that bothers me for some time. clear_fixmap(), which is used
in various places (e.g., text_poke()), ends up in doing only a local TLB
flush (in __set_pte_vaddr()).
Is that sufficient?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists