lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about
> > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL
> > lock instead of taking _the_ PTL lock.
>
> It does not care about “anything” inside the range, but only on situations
> in which there is at least one (same) PT that was modified by one core and
> then read by the other. So, yes, it will always be _the_ same PTL, and not
> _a_ PTL - in the cases that flush is really needed.
>
> The issue that might require additional barriers is that
> inc_tlb_flush_pending() and mm_tlb_flush_nested() are called when the PTL is
> not held. IIUC, since the release-acquire might not behave as a full memory
> barrier, this requires an explicit memory barrier.

So I'm not entirely clear about this yet.

How about:


CPU0 CPU1

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLn
no mod
unlock PTLn

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLm
mod
include in tlb range
unlock PTLm

lock PTLn
mod
unlock PTLn

tlb_finish_mmu()
force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


... more ...

tlb_finish_mmu()



In this case you also want CPU1's mm_tlb_flush_nested() call to return
true, right?

But even with an smp_mb__after_atomic() at CPU0's tlg_bather_mmu()
you're not guaranteed CPU1 sees the increment. The only way to do that
is to make the PTL locks RCsc and that is a much more expensive
proposition.


What about:


CPU0 CPU1

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLn
no mod
unlock PTLn


lock PTLm
mod
include in tlb range
unlock PTLm

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLn
mod
unlock PTLn

tlb_finish_mmu()
force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


... more ...

tlb_finish_mmu()

Do we want CPU1 to see it here? If so, where does it end?


CPU0 CPU1

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLn
no mod
unlock PTLn


lock PTLm
mod
include in tlb range
unlock PTLm

tlb_finish_mmu()
force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);

tlb_gather_mmu()

lock PTLn
mod
unlock PTLn

arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


... more ...

tlb_finish_mmu()


This?


Could you clarify under what exact condition mm_tlb_flush_nested() must
return true?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-13 14:50    [W:0.084 / U:3.436 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site