[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a45834bc-e6f2-ac21-de9e-1aff67d12797@arm.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 06:26:40 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V15] mm/debug: Add tests validating architecture page
table helpers
On 03/07/2020 06:04 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 6, 2020, at 7:03 PM, Anshuman Khandual <Anshuman.Khandual@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, set_pte_at() function is not preferred here for these tests. The idea
>> is to avoid or atleast minimize TLB/cache flushes triggered from these sort
>> of 'static' tests. set_pte_at() is platform provided and could/might trigger
>> these flushes or some other platform specific synchronization stuff. Just
>
> Why is that important for this debugging option?
Primarily reason is to avoid TLB/cache flush instructions on the system
during these tests that only involve transforming different page table
level entries through helpers. Unless really necessary, why should it
emit any TLB/cache flush instructions ?
>
>> wondering is there specific reason with respect to the soft lock up problem
>> making it necessary to use set_pte_at() rather than a simple WRITE_ONCE() ?
>
> Looks at the s390 version of set_pte_at(), it has this comment,
> vmaddr);
>
> /*
> * Certain architectures need to do special things when PTEs
> * within a page table are directly modified. Thus, the following
> * hook is made available.
> */
>
> I can only guess that powerpc could be the same here.
This comment is present in multiple platforms while defining set_pte_at().
Is not 'barrier()' here alone good enough ? Else what exactly set_pte_at()
does as compared to WRITE_ONCE() that avoids the soft lock up, just trying
to understand.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists