On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 12:38:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> That's tlb->cleared_p*, and yes agreed. That is, right until some
> architecture has level dependent TLBI instructions, at which point we'll
> need to have them all set instead of cleared.

> Anyway; am I correct in understanding that the actual problem is that
> we've cleared freed_tables and the ARM64 tlb_flush() will then not
> invalidate the cache and badness happens?
> 
> Because so far nobody has actually provided a coherent description of
> the actual problem we're trying to solve. But I'm thinking something
> like the below ought to do.

There's another 'fun' issue I think. For architectures like ARM that
have range invalidation and care about VM_EXEC for I$ invalidation, the
below doesn't quite work right either.

I suspect we also have to force: tlb->vma_exec = 1.

And I don't think there's an architecture that cares, but depending on
details I can construct cases where any setting of tlb->vm_hugetlb is
wrong, so that is _awesome_. But I suspect the sane thing for now is to
force it 0.

> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> index 99740e1dd273..fe768f8d612e 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> @@ -244,15 +244,20 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>               unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>  {
>       /*
> -      * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
> -      * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
> -      * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
> -      * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
> -      * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
> +      * Sensible comment goes here..
>        */
> -     if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
> -             __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> -             __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
> +     if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->full_mm) {
> +             /*
> +              * Since we're can't tell what we actually should have
> +              * flushed flush everything in the given range.
> +              */
> +             tlb->start = start;
> +             tlb->end = end;
> +             tlb->freed_tables = 1;
> +             tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
> +             tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
> +             tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
> +             tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
>       }
>  
>       tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);

Reply via email to