Hi,
I know Will is on the case but just expressing some thoughts of my own.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:32:54PM +0900, Takao Indoh wrote:
> From: Takao Indoh <indou.ta...@fujitsu.com>
>
> mm_cpumask was deleted by the commit 38d96287504a ("arm64: mm: kill
> mm_cpumask usage") because it was not used at that time. Now this is needed
> to find appropriate CPUs for TLB flush, so this patch reverts this commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: QI Fuli <qi.f...@fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Takao Indoh <indou.ta...@fujitsu.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 7 ++++++-
> arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 6 ++++++
> arch/arm64/mm/context.c | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index 2da3e478fd8f..21ef11590bcb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -241,8 +241,13 @@ static inline void
> switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - if (prev != next)
> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + if (prev != next) {
> __switch_mm(next);
> + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(prev));
> + local_flush_tlb_mm(prev);
> + }
That's not actually a revert as we've never flushed the TLBs on the
switch_mm() path. Also, this flush is not sufficient on a CnP capable
CPU since another thread of the same CPU could have the prev TTBR0_EL1
value set and loading the TLB back.
--
Catalin
