On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:46:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I'm certainly still missing something here:
> >
> > We have f->new_tlb_gen and mm_tlb_gen to control the flushing, i.e., we
> > do once
> >
> > bump_mm_tlb_gen(mm);
> >
> > and once
> >
> > info.new_tlb_gen = bump_mm_tlb_gen(mm);
> >
> > and in both cases, the bumping is done on mm->context.tlb_gen.
> >
> > So why isn't that enough to do the flushing and we have to consult
> > info.new_tlb_gen too?
>
> The issue is a possible race. Suppose we start at tlb_gen == 1 and
> then two concurrent flushes happen. The first flush is a full flush
> and sets tlb_gen to 2. The second is a partial flush and sets tlb_gen
> to 3. If the second flush gets propagated to a given CPU first and it
Maybe I'm still missing something, which is likely...
but if the second flush gets propagated to the CPU first, the CPU will
have local tlb_gen 1 and thus enforce a full flush anyway because we
will go 1 -> 3 on that particular CPU. Or?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
--
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>
