[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVQ3wc/XjeOHpGCX@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 11:54:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jacob Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Raj Ashok <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/mmu: Add mm-based PASID refcounting
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:03:53PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think the perfect and the good are a bit confused here. If we go for
> "good", then we have an mm owning a PASID for its entire lifetime. If
> we want "perfect", then we should actually do it right: teach the
> kernel to update an entire mm's PASID setting all at once. This isn't
> *that* hard -- it involves two things:
>
> 1. The context switch code needs to resync PASID. Unfortunately, this
> adds some overhead to every context switch, although a static_branch
> could minimize it for non-PASID users.
> 2. A change to an mm's PASID needs to sent an IPI, but that IPI can't
> touch FPU state. So instead the IPI should use task_work_add() to
> make sure PASID gets resynced.
What do we need 1 for? Any PASID change can be achieved using 2 no?
Basically, call task_work_add() on all relevant tasks [1], then IPI
spray the current running of those and presto.
[1] it is nigh on impossible to find all tasks sharing an mm in any sane
way due to CLONE_MM && !CLONE_THREAD.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists