Hi, Nadav, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> > > flush_tlb_batched_pending() appears to have a theoretical race: > tlb_flush_batched is being cleared after the TLB flush, and if in > between another core calls set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() and sets the > pending TLB flush indication, this indication might be lost. Holding the > page-table lock when SPLIT_LOCK is set cannot eliminate this race. Recently, when I read the corresponding code, I find the exact same race too. Do you still think the race is possible at least in theory? If so, why hasn't your fix been merged? > The current batched TLB invalidation scheme therefore does not seem > viable or easily repairable. I have some idea to fix this without too much code. If necessary, I will send it out. Best Regards, Huang, Ying
