[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200710094201.GZ4800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:42:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/7] x86: use exit_lazy_tlb rather than
membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:56:43AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> And get rid of the generic sync_core_before_usermode facility.
>
> This helper is the wrong way around I think. The idea that membarrier
> state requires a core sync before returning to user is the easy one
> that does not need hiding behind membarrier calls. The gap in core
> synchronization due to x86's sysret/sysexit and lazy tlb mode, is the
> tricky detail that is better put in x86 lazy tlb code.
>
> Consider if an arch did not synchronize core in switch_mm either, then
> membarrier_mm_sync_core_before_usermode would be in the wrong place
> but arch specific mmu context functions would still be the right place.
> There is also a exit_lazy_tlb case that is not covered by this call, which
> could be a bugs (kthread use mm the membarrier process's mm then context
> switch back to the process without switching mm or lazy mm switch).
>
> This makes lazy tlb code a bit more modular.
Hurmph, I know I've been staring at this at some point. I think I meant
to have a TIF to force the IRET path in the case of MEMBAR_SYNC_CORE.
But I was discouraged by amluto.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists