linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YCu2MQFdV4JTrUQb@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 13:10:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/8] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs
 concurrently

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 02:16:49PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
> @@ -816,8 +821,8 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>  	 * doing a speculative memory access.
>  	 */
>  	if (info->freed_tables) {
> -		smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func,
> -			       (void *)info, 1);
> +		on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
> +				      cpumask);
>  	} else {
>  		/*
>  		 * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
> @@ -844,14 +849,15 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
>  			if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu))
>  				__cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask);
>  		}
> -		smp_call_function_many(cond_cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, 1);
> +		on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
> +				      cpumask);
>  	}
>  }

Surely on_each_cpu_mask() is more appropriate? There the compiler can do
the NULL propagation because it's on the same TU.

--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -821,8 +821,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi(
 	 * doing a speculative memory access.
 	 */
 	if (info->freed_tables) {
-		on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
-				      cpumask);
+		on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true);
 	} else {
 		/*
 		 * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(),
@@ -849,8 +848,7 @@ STATIC_NOPV void native_flush_tlb_multi(
 			if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu))
 				__cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask);
 		}
-		on_each_cpu_cond_mask(NULL, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true,
-				      cpumask);
+		on_each_cpu_mask(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, (void *)info, true);
 	}
 }