[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49C173B5-CF12-44AA-BE00-689E99E65C23@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 20:02:05 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/tlb: ignore f->new_tlb_gen when zero
On Jul 8, 2022, at 12:21 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> ⚠ External Email
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>>
>> Commit aa44284960d5 ("x86/mm/tlb: Avoid reading mm_tlb_gen when
>> possible") introduced an optimization of skipping the flush if the TLB
>> generation that is flushed (as provided in flush_tlb_info) was already
>> flushed.
>>
>> However, arch_tlbbatch_flush() does not provide any generation in
>> flush_tlb_info. As a result, try_to_unmap_one() would not perform any
>> TLB flushes.
>>
>> Fix it by checking whether f->new_tlb_gen is nonzero. Zero value is
>> anyhow is an invalid generation value.
>>
>> In addition, add the missing unlikely() and jump to get tracing right.
>>
>> Fixes: aa44284960d5 ("x86/mm/tlb: Avoid reading mm_tlb_gen when possible")
>> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>
> Thanks a lot for your rapid response and thinking it through
> (before I got around to any "nopcid" or "nopti" experiments).
>
> I've been testing this one for a few hours now, and no problems seen.
> I expect you'll be sending another version, maybe next week, meeting
> Dave's concerns; but wanted to reassure that you have correctly
> identified the issue and fixed it with this - thanks.
Thanks, Hugh. Sorry again for my mistake.
Can I please have your “Tested-by”?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists