Re: Potential race in TLB flush batching?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
> @@ -455,6 +455,39 @@ void arch_tlbbatch_flush(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *batch)
>         put_cpu();
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * Ensure that any arch_tlbbatch_add_mm calls on this mm are up to date when

s/are up to date/have flushed the TLBs/ perhaps?


Can you update this comment in arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h:

         * - Fully flush a single mm.  .mm will be set, .end will be
         *   TLB_FLUSH_ALL, and .new_tlb_gen will be the tlb_gen to
         *   which the IPI sender is trying to catch us up.

by adding something like: This can also happen due to
arch_tlbflush_flush_one_mm(), in which case it's quite likely that
most or all CPUs are already up to date.

Thanks,
Andy

--
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>



[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]
  Powered by Linux