[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <B197B99D-14BA-4ED4-A5ED-91A48A403735@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:42:19 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm/mprotect: avoid unnecessary TLB flushes
> On Oct 25, 2021, at 3:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 08:04:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 05:21:07 -0700 Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This patch-set is intended to remove unnecessary TLB flushes. It is
>>> based on feedback from v1 and several bugs I found in v1 myself.
>>>
>>> Basically, there are 3 optimizations in this patch-set:
>>> 1. Avoiding TLB flushes on change_huge_pmd() that are only needed to
>>> prevent the A/D bits from changing.
>>> 2. Use TLB batching infrastructure to batch flushes across VMAs and
>>> do better/fewer flushes.
>>> 3. Avoid TLB flushes on permission demotion.
>>>
>>> Andrea asked for the aforementioned (2) to come after (3), but this
>>> is not simple (specifically since change_prot_numa() needs the number
>>> of pages affected).
>>
>> [1/5] appears to be a significant fix which should probably be
>> backported into -stable kernels. If you agree with this then I suggest
>> it be prepared as a standalone patch, separate from the other four
>> patches. With a cc:stable.
>
> I am confused, 1/5 doesn't actually do *anything*. I also cannot find
> any further usage of the introduced X86_BUG_PTE_LEAK.
>
> I'm thinking patch #2 means to have something like:
>
> if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_BUG_PTE_LEAK))
> flush_pmd_tlb_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
>
> In the newly minted: pmdp_invalidate_ad(), but alas, nothing there.
This change was only intended for pmdp_invalidate_ad() but somehow
got lost. I will add it there.
I eventually did not add the optimization to avoid TLB flushes on
(!dirty|write)->!write so I did not use it for the first case that
you mentioned. I am too afraid, although I think this is correct.
Perhaps I will add it as a separate patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists