[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190513091205.GO2650@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:12:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"jstancek@...hat.com" <jstancek@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force
flush
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:36:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:21:35PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > It may be possible to avoid false-positive nesting indications (when the
> > flushes do not overlap) by creating a new struct mmu_gather_pending, with
> > something like:
> >
> > struct mmu_gather_pending {
> > u64 start;
> > u64 end;
> > struct mmu_gather_pending *next;
> > }
> >
> > tlb_finish_mmu() would then iterate over the mm->mmu_gather_pending
> > (pointing to the linked list) and find whether there is any overlap. This
> > would still require synchronization (acquiring a lock when allocating and
> > deallocating or something fancier).
>
> We have an interval_tree for this, and yes, that's how far I got :/
>
> The other thing I was thinking of is trying to detect overlap through
> the page-tables themselves, but we have a distinct lack of storage
> there.
We might just use some state in the pmd, there's still 2 _pt_pad_[12] in
struct page to 'use'. So we could come up with some tlb generation
scheme that would detect conflict.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists