[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250302145555.3236789-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 14:55:54 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andreas Larsson <andreas@...sler.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 4/4] Revert "x86/xen: allow nesting of same lazy mode"
Commit 49147beb0ccb ("x86/xen: allow nesting of same lazy mode") was
added as a solution for a core-mm code change where
arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode() started to be called in a nested
manner; see commit bcc6cc832573 ("mm: add default definition of
set_ptes()").
However, now that we have fixed the API to avoid nesting, we no longer
need this capability in the x86 implementation.
Additionally, from code review, I don't believe the fix was ever robust
in the case of preemption occurring while in the nested lazy mode. The
implementation usually deals with preemption by calling
arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode() from xen_start_context_switch() for the
outgoing task if we are in the lazy mmu mode. Then in
xen_end_context_switch(), it restarts the lazy mode by calling
arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode() for an incoming task that was in the lazy
mode when it was switched out. But arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode() will only
unwind a single level of nesting. If we are in the double nest, then
it's not fully unwound and per-cpu variables are left in a bad state.
So the correct solution is to remove the possibility of nesting from the
higher level (which has now been done) and remove this x86-specific
solution.
Fixes: 49147beb0ccb ("x86/xen: allow nesting of same lazy mode")
Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h | 15 ++-------------
arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c | 1 -
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
index a9088250770f..bd0fc69a10a7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
@@ -72,18 +72,10 @@ enum xen_lazy_mode {
};
DECLARE_PER_CPU(enum xen_lazy_mode, xen_lazy_mode);
-DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, xen_lazy_nesting);
static inline void enter_lazy(enum xen_lazy_mode mode)
{
- enum xen_lazy_mode old_mode = this_cpu_read(xen_lazy_mode);
-
- if (mode == old_mode) {
- this_cpu_inc(xen_lazy_nesting);
- return;
- }
-
- BUG_ON(old_mode != XEN_LAZY_NONE);
+ BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(xen_lazy_mode) != XEN_LAZY_NONE);
this_cpu_write(xen_lazy_mode, mode);
}
@@ -92,10 +84,7 @@ static inline void leave_lazy(enum xen_lazy_mode mode)
{
BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(xen_lazy_mode) != mode);
- if (this_cpu_read(xen_lazy_nesting) == 0)
- this_cpu_write(xen_lazy_mode, XEN_LAZY_NONE);
- else
- this_cpu_dec(xen_lazy_nesting);
+ this_cpu_write(xen_lazy_mode, XEN_LAZY_NONE);
}
enum xen_lazy_mode xen_get_lazy_mode(void);
diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
index 5e57835e999d..919e4df9380b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_pv.c
@@ -99,7 +99,6 @@ struct tls_descs {
};
DEFINE_PER_CPU(enum xen_lazy_mode, xen_lazy_mode) = XEN_LAZY_NONE;
-DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, xen_lazy_nesting);
enum xen_lazy_mode xen_get_lazy_mode(void)
{
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists