Catching up a bit...
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024, at 5:39 AM, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> During context switching, if we are not switching to new mm and no TLB
> flush is needed, we do not write CR3. However, it is possible that a
> user thread enables LAM while a kthread is running on a different CPU
> with the old LAM CR3 mask. If the kthread context switches into any
> thread of that user process, it may not write CR3 with the new LAM mask,
> which would cause the user thread to run with a misconfigured CR3 that
> disables LAM on the CPU.
So I think (off the top of my head -- haven't thought about it all that hard) that LAM is logically like PCE and LDT: it's a property of an mm that is only rarely changed, and it doesn't really belong as part of the tlb_gen mechanism. And, critically, it's not worth the effort and complexity to try to optimize LAM changes when we have a lazy CPU (just like PCE and LDT) (whereas TLB flushes are performance critical and are absolutely worth optimizing).
So...
>
> Fix this by making sure we write a new CR3 if LAM is not up-to-date. No
> problems were observed in practice, this was found by code inspection.
I think it should be fixed with a much bigger hammer: explicit IPIs. Just don't ever let it get out of date, like install_ldt().
>
> Not that it is possible that mm->context.lam_cr3_mask changes throughout
> switch_mm_irqs_off(). But since LAM can only be enabled by a
> single-threaded process on its own behalf, in that case we cannot be
> switching to a user thread in that same process, we can only be
> switching to another kthread using the borrowed mm or a different user
> process, which should be fine.
The thought process is even simpler with the IPI: it *can* change while switching, but it will resynchronize immediately once IRQs turn back on. And whoever changes it will *synchronize* with us, which would otherwise require extremely complex logic to get right.
And...
> - if (!was_lazy)
> - return;
> + if (was_lazy) {
> + /*
> + * Read the tlb_gen to check whether a flush is needed.
> + * If the TLB is up to date, just use it. The barrier
> + * synchronizes with the tlb_gen increment in the TLB
> + * shootdown code.
> + */
> + smp_mb();
This is actually rather expensive -- from old memory, we're talking maybe 20 cycles here, but this path is *very* hot and we try fairly hard to make it be fast. If we get the happy PCID path, it's maybe 100-200 cycles, so this is like a 10% regression. Ouch.
And you can delete all of this if you accept my suggestion.
