[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24863d8904c6e05e5dd48cab57db4274675ae654.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:28:41 -0300
From: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Mahesh Salgaonkar <mahesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Fontana <rfontana@...hat.com>,
Ganesh Goudar <ganeshgr@...ux.ibm.com>,
Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable: Uses counting
method to skip serializing
On Fri, 2019-09-20 at 13:11 -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 9/20/19 12:50 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Skips slow part of serialize_against_pte_lookup if there is no running
> > lockless pagetable walk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > index 13239b17a22c..41ca30269fa3 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/book3s64/pgtable.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,8 @@ static void do_nothing(void *unused)
> > void serialize_against_pte_lookup(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > {
> > smp_mb();
> > - smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> > + if (running_lockless_pgtbl_walk(mm))
> > + smp_call_function_many(mm_cpumask(mm), do_nothing, NULL, 1);
>
> Hi,
>
> If you do this, then you are left without any synchronization. So it will
> have race conditions: a page table walk could begin right after the above
> check returns "false", and then code such as hash__pmdp_huge_get_and_clear()
> will continue on right away, under the false assumption that it has let
> all the current page table walks complete.
>
> The current code uses either interrupts or RCU to synchronize, and in
> either case, you end up scheduling something on each CPU. If you remove
> that entirely, I don't see anything left. ("Pure" atomic counting is not
> a synchronization technique all by itself.)
>
> thanks,
Hello John,
Thanks for the fast feedback.
See, before calling serialize_against_pte_lookup(), there is always an
update or clear on the pmd. So, if a page table walk begin right after
the check returns "false", there is no problem, since it will use the
updated pmd.
Think about serialize, on a process with a bunch of cpus. After you
check the last processor (wait part), there is no guarantee that the
first one is not starting a lockless pagetable walk.
The same mechanism protect both methods.
Does it make sense?
Best regards,
Leonardo Bras
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists