lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Current mainline git (24e700e291d52bd2) hangs when building e.g. perf
From
Date


> On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not convinced. The SDM says (Vol 3, 11.3, under WC):
>>
>> If the WC buffer is partially filled, the writes may be delayed until
>> the next occurrence of a serializing event; such as, an SFENCE or
>> MFENCE instruction, CPUID execution, a read or write to uncached
>> memory, an interrupt occurrence, or a LOCK instruction execution.
>>
>> Thanks, Intel, for definiing "serializing event" differently here than
>> anywhere else in the whole manual.
>
> Yeah, it's really badly defined. Ok, maybe a locked instruction does
> actually wait for it.. It should be invisible to anything, regardless.
>
>> 1. The kernel wants to reclaim a page of normal memory, so it unmaps
>> it and flushes. Another CPU has an entry for that page in its WC
>> buffer. I don't think we care whether the flush causes the WC write
>> to really hit RAM because it's unobservable -- we just need to make
>> sure it is ordered, as seen by software, before the flush operation
>> completes. From the quote above, I think we're okay here.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 2. The kernel is unmapping some IO memory (e.g. a GPU command buffer).
>> It wants a guarantee that, when flush_tlb_mm_range returns, all CPUs
>> are really done writing to it. Here I'm less convinced. The SDM
>> quote certainly suggests to me that we have a promise that the WC
>> write has *started* before flush_tlb_mm_range returns, but I'm not
>> sure I believe that it's guaranteed to have retired.
>
> If others have writable TLB entries, what keeps them from just
> continuing to write for a long time afterwards?

Whoever unmaps the resource by kicking out their drm fd? I admit I'm just trying to think of the worst case.

>
>> I'd prefer to leave it as is except on the buggy AMD CPUs, though,
>> since the current code is nice and fast.
>
> So is there a patch to detect the 383 erratum and serialize for those?
> I may have missed that part.
>

The patch is in my head. It's imaginarily attached to this email.


> Linus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-09 03:40    [W:0.092 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site