On Jul 8, 2022, at 12:21 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ⚠ External Email
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2022, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Commit aa44284960d5 ("x86/mm/tlb: Avoid reading mm_tlb_gen when
>> possible") introduced an optimization of skipping the flush if the TLB
>> generation that is flushed (as provided in flush_tlb_info) was already
>> flushed.
>>
>> However, arch_tlbbatch_flush() does not provide any generation in
>> flush_tlb_info. As a result, try_to_unmap_one() would not perform any
>> TLB flushes.
>>
>> Fix it by checking whether f->new_tlb_gen is nonzero. Zero value is
>> anyhow is an invalid generation value.
>>
>> In addition, add the missing unlikely() and jump to get tracing right.
>>
>> Fixes: aa44284960d5 ("x86/mm/tlb: Avoid reading mm_tlb_gen when possible")
>> Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks a lot for your rapid response and thinking it through
> (before I got around to any "nopcid" or "nopti" experiments).
>
> I've been testing this one for a few hours now, and no problems seen.
> I expect you'll be sending another version, maybe next week, meeting
> Dave's concerns; but wanted to reassure that you have correctly
> identified the issue and fixed it with this - thanks.
Thanks, Hugh. Sorry again for my mistake.
Can I please have your “Tested-by”?
