[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210203094459.GA18493@willie-the-truck>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:44:59 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/20] mm/tlb: fix fullmm semantics
On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:35:38PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 2021, at 3:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 01:32:36AM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> On Feb 1, 2021, at 3:36 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210127235347.1402-1-will@kernel.org
> >>
> >> I have seen this series, and applied my patches on it.
> >>
> >> Despite Will’s patches, there were still inconsistencies between fullmm
> >> and need_flush_all.
> >>
> >> Am I missing something?
> >
> > I wasn't aware you were on top. I'll look again.
>
> Looking on arm64’s tlb_flush() makes me think that there is currently a bug
> that this patch fixes. Arm64’s tlb_flush() does:
>
> /*
> * If we're tearing down the address space then we only care about
> * invalidating the walk-cache, since the ASID allocator won't
> * reallocate our ASID without invalidating the entire TLB.
> */
> if (tlb->fullmm) {
> if (!last_level)
> flush_tlb_mm(tlb->mm);
> return;
> }
>
> But currently tlb_mmu_finish() can mistakenly set fullmm incorrectly (if
> mm_tlb_flush_nested() is true), which might skip the TLB flush.
But in that case isn't 'freed_tables' set to 1, so 'last_level' will be
false and we'll do the flush in the code above?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists