On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 06:48:19PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 12:51:27AM -0800, Piotr Jaroszynski wrote:
> > Update the __flush_tlb_range_op macro not to modify its parameters as
> > these are unexepcted semantics. In practice, this fixes the call to
> > mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs() in
> > __flush_tlb_range_nosync() to use the correct range instead of an empty
> > range with start=end. The empty range was (un)lucky as it results in
> > taking the invalidate-all path that doesn't cause correctness issues,
> > but can certainly result in suboptimal perf.
> >
> > This has been broken since commit 6bbd42e2df8f ("mmu_notifiers: call
> > invalidate_range() when invalidating TLBs") when the call to the
> > notifiers was added to __flush_tlb_range(). It predates the addition of
> > the __flush_tlb_range_op() macro from commit 360839027a6e ("arm64: tlb:
> > Refactor the core flush algorithm of __flush_tlb_range") that made the
> > bug hard to spot.
>
> That's the problem with macros.
>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
>
> Will, do you want to take this as a fix? It's only a performance
> regression, though you never know how it breaks the callers of the macro
> at some point.
Yeah, I'll pick it up but I'm travelling atm so it may have to wait until
next week.
Will
