On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 04:40:15AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > Reading tlb_flush_pending while the page-table lock is taken does not > require a barrier, since the lock/unlock already acts as a barrier. > Removing the barrier in mm_tlb_flush_pending() to address this issue. > > However, migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() calls mm_tlb_flush_pending() > while the page-table lock is already released, which may present a > problem on architectures with weak memory model (PPC). To deal with this > case, a new parameter is added to mm_tlb_flush_pending() to indicate > if it is read without the page-table lock taken, and calling > smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in this case. > > Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> Conditional locking based on function arguements are often considered extremely hazardous. Conditional barriers are even more troublesome because it's simply too easy to get wrong. Revert b0943d61b8fa420180f92f64ef67662b4f6cc493 instead of this patch. It's not a clean revert but conflicts are due to comment changes. It moves the check back under the PTL and the impact is marginal given that it a spurious TLB flush will only occur when potentially racing with change_prot_range. Since that commit went in, a lot of changes have happened that alter the scan rate of automatic NUMA balancing so it shouldn't be a serious issue. It's certainly a nicer option than using conditional barriers. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- 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>
