lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 08:38:05 +0000 From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>, Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>, "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently > On May 25, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote: > > To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs > concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. The current > flush_tlb_others() interface is kept, since paravirtual interfaces need > to be adapted first before it can be removed. This is left for future > work. In such PV environments, TLB flushes are not performed, at this > time, concurrently. > > +void native_flush_tlb_multi(const struct cpumask *cpumask, > + const struct flush_tlb_info *info) > { > + /* > + * native_flush_tlb_multi() can handle a single CPU, but it is > + * suboptimal if the local TLB should be flushed, and therefore should > + * not be used in such case. Check that it is not used in such case, > + * and use this assumption for tracing and accounting of remote TLB > + * flushes. > + */ > + VM_WARN_ON(!cpumask_any_but(cpumask, smp_processor_id())); This warning might fire off incorrectly and will be removed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists