[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zgt8y4aj.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:05:24 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 20/20] mm/rmap: avoid potential races
Hi, Nadav,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> writes:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>
> flush_tlb_batched_pending() appears to have a theoretical race:
> tlb_flush_batched is being cleared after the TLB flush, and if in
> between another core calls set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() and sets the
> pending TLB flush indication, this indication might be lost. Holding the
> page-table lock when SPLIT_LOCK is set cannot eliminate this race.
Recently, when I read the corresponding code, I find the exact same race
too. Do you still think the race is possible at least in theory? If
so, why hasn't your fix been merged?
> The current batched TLB invalidation scheme therefore does not seem
> viable or easily repairable.
I have some idea to fix this without too much code. If necessary, I
will send it out.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists