Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Dave Hansen
> <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06/14/2016 01:16 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/14/2016 09:47 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>> Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> +void fix_pte_leak(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>> Here there should be a call to smp_mb__after_atomic() to synchronize with
>>>>> switch_mm. I submitted a similar patch, which is still pending (hint).
>>>>>
>>>>>>> + if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids) {
>>>>>>> + trace_tlb_flush(TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
>>>>>>> + flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, addr,
>>>>>>> + addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>>>> + mb();
>>>>>>> + set_pte(ptep, __pte(0));
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't that barrier be incorporated in the TLB flush code itself and
>>>> not every single caller (like this code is)?
>>>>
>>>> It is insane to require individual TLB flushers to be concerned with the
>>>> barriers.
>>>
>>> IMHO it is best to use existing flushing interfaces instead of creating
>>> new ones.
>>
>> Yeah, or make these things a _little_ harder to get wrong. That little
>> snippet above isn't so crazy that we should be depending on open-coded
>> barriers to get it right.
>>
>> Should we just add a barrier to mm_cpumask() itself? That should stop
>> the race. Or maybe we need a new primitive like:
>>
>> /*
>> * Call this if a full barrier has been executed since the last
>> * pagetable modification operation.
>> */
>> static int __other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> /* cpumask_any_but() returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no cpus set. */
>> return cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) <
>> nr_cpu_ids;
>> }
>>
>>
>> static int other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>> /*
>> * Synchronizes with switch_mm. Makes sure that we do not
>> * observe a bit having been cleared in mm_cpumask() before
>> * the other processor has seen our pagetable update. See
>> * switch_mm().
>> */
>> smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>
>> return __other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(mm)
>> }
>>
>> We should be able to deploy other_cpus_need_tlb_flush() in most of the
>> cases where we are doing "cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm),
>> smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids".
>
> IMO this is a bit nuts. smp_mb__after_atomic() doesn't do anything on
> x86. And, even if it did, why should the flush code assume that the
> previous store was atomic?
>
> What's the issue being fixed / worked around here?
It does a compiler barrier, which prevents the decision whether a
remote TLB shootdown is required to be made before the PTE is set.
I agree that PTEs may not be written atomically in certain cases
(although I am unaware of such cases, except on full-mm flush).
Having said that, I think that all the TLB flush/shootdown logic
should not be open-coded at all and be left in the arch-specific
implementation. People keep making small mistakes when they
reimplement the flushing logic.
This patch, for example, also has a bug in the way it traces the
flush - it marks full flush, when it flushes a single page:
>>>>>>> trace_tlb_flush(TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
Regards,
Nadav
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href