On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 17:47 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
>> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> unsigned long start,
>> goto out;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!current->mm) {
>> + if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) != TLBSTATE_OK) {
>> leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
>
> Unless -mm changed leave_mm (I did not check), this
> is not quite correct yet.
>
> The reason is leave_mm (at least in the latest Linus
> tree) ignores the cpu argument for one of its checks.
>
> You should probably fix that in an earlier patch,
> assuming you haven't already done so in -mm.
>
> void leave_mm(int cpu)
> {
> struct mm_struct *active_mm =
> this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm);
> if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK)
> BUG();
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm))) {
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm));
> load_cr3(swapper_pg_dir);
I agree it's odd, but what's the bug? Both before and after, leave_mm
needed to be called with cpu == smp_processor_id(), and
smp_processor_id() warns if it's called in a preemptible context.
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
