Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When (current->active_mm != mm), flush_tlb_page() does not perform a
>> memory barrier. In practice, this memory barrier is not needed since in
>> the existing call-sites the PTE is modified using atomic-operations.
>> This patch therefore modifies the existing smp_mb in flush_tlb_page to
>> smp_mb__after_atomic and adds the missing one, while documenting the new
>> assumption of flush_tlb_page.
>>
>> In addition smp_mb__after_atomic is also added to
>> set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending, since it makes a similar implicit assumption
>> and omits the memory barrier.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> mm/rmap.c | 3 +++
>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> index fe9b9f7..2534333 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ out:
>> preempt_enable();
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Calls to flush_tlb_page must be preceded by atomic PTE change or
>> + * explicit memory-barrier.
>> + */
>> void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
>> {
>> struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>> @@ -259,8 +263,11 @@ void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
>> leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
>>
>> /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> - smp_mb();
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> }
>> + } else {
>> + /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> }
>>
>> if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 307b555..60ab0fe 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -613,6 +613,9 @@ static void set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> {
>> struct tlbflush_unmap_batch *tlb_ubc = ¤t->tlb_ubc;
>>
>> + /* Synchronize with switch_mm. */
>> + smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> +
>> cpumask_or(&tlb_ubc->cpumask, &tlb_ubc->cpumask, mm_cpumask(mm));
>> tlb_ubc->flush_required = true;
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>
> This looks fine for x86, but I have no idea whether other
> architectures are okay with it. akpm? mm folks?
Ping?
Note that this patch adds two missing barriers.
Thanks,
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