[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201120204005.GC1303870@google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 13:40:05 -0700
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: proc: Avoid fullmm flush for young/dirty bit
toggling
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:57PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> clear_refs_write() uses the 'fullmm' API for invalidating TLBs after
> updating the page-tables for the current mm. However, since the mm is not
> being freed, this can result in stale TLB entries on architectures which
> elide 'fullmm' invalidation.
>
> Ensure that TLB invalidation is performed after updating soft-dirty
> entries via clear_refs_write() by using the non-fullmm API to MMU gather.
>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index a76d339b5754..316af047f1aa 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1238,7 +1238,7 @@ static ssize_t clear_refs_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> count = -EINTR;
> goto out_mm;
> }
> - tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm(&tlb, mm);
> + tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE);
Let's assume my reply to patch 4 is wrong, and therefore we still need
tlb_gather/finish_mmu() here. But then wouldn't this change deprive
architectures other than ARM the opportunity to optimize based on the
fact it's a full-mm flush?
It seems to me ARM's interpretation of tlb->fullmm is a special case,
not the other way around.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists