On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:25:38 +1000 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:03:55 -0400
> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > It looks like last summer, there were 2 sets of patches
> > in flight to fix the issue of simultaneous mprotect/madvise
> > calls unmapping PTEs, and some pages not being flushed from
> > the TLB before returning to userspace.
> >
> > Minchan posted these patches:
> > 56236a59556c ("mm: refactor TLB gathering API")
> > 99baac21e458 ("mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss problem")
> >
> > Around the same time, Mel posted:
> > 4647706ebeee ("mm: always flush VMA ranges affected by zap_page_range")
> >
> > They both appear to solve the same bug.
> >
> > Only one of the two solutions is needed.
> >
> > However, 4647706ebeee appears to introduce extra TLB
> > flushes - one per VMA, instead of one over the entire
> > range unmapped, and also extra flushes when there are
> > no simultaneous unmappers of the same mm.
> >
> > For that reason, it seems like we should revert
> > 4647706ebeee and keep only Minchan's solution in
> > the kernel.
> >
> > Am I overlooking any reason why we should not revert
> > 4647706ebeee?
>
> Yes I think so. Discussed here recently:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152878780528037&w=2
Unclear if that was an ack ;)
> Actually we realized that powerpc does not implement the mmu
> gather flushing quite right so it needs a fix before this
> revert. But I propose the revert for next merge window.
Yes, I have Rik's patch for 4.19-rc1. I added yourself, Aneesh and
Nadav to cc so you'll see it fly past. If poss, please do get this all
tested before the time comes and let me know?
