On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 02:00:24PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:56:02AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:43:18AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > But some CPUs don't like to have two TLB entries for the same memory with > > > different sizes at the same time. See for instance AMD erratum 383. > > > > > > Getting it right would require making the range not present, flush TLB and > > > only then install huge page. That's what we do for userspace. > > > > > > It will not fly for the direct mapping. There is no reasonable way to > > > exclude other CPU from accessing the range while it's not present (call > > > stop_machine()? :P). Moreover, the range may contain the code that doing > > > the collapse or data required for it... > > > > > > BTW, looks like current __split_large_page() in pageattr.c is susceptible > > > to the errata. Maybe we can get away with the easy way... > > > > As you write above, there is just no way we can have a (temporary) hole > > in the direct map. > > > > We are careful about that other errata, and make sure both translations > > are identical wrt everything else. > > It's not clear if it is enough to avoid the issue. "under a highly specific > and detailed set of conditions" is not very specific set of conditions :P Yeah, I know ... :/ Tom is there any chance you could shed a little more light on that errata?
