On Jan 8, 2016 3:41 PM, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * We mustn't be preempted or handle an IPI while reading and
> > + * writing CR3. Preemption could switch mms and switch back, and
> > + * an IPI could call leave_mm. Either of those could cause our
> > + * PCID to change asynchronously.
> > + */
> > + raw_local_irq_save(flags);
> > native_write_cr3(native_read_cr3());
> > + raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>
> This seems sad for two reasons:
>
> - it adds unnecessary overhead on non-pcid setups (32-bit being an
> example of that)
I can certainly skip the flag saving on !PCID.
>
> - on pcid setups, wouldn't invpcid_flush_single_context() be better?
>
I played with that and it was slower. I don't pretend that makes any sense.
> So on the whole I hate it.
>
> Why isn't this something like
>
> if (static_cpu_has_safe(X86_FEATURE_INVPCID)) {
> invpcid_flush_single_context();
> return;
> }
> native_write_cr3(native_read_cr3());
>
> *without* any flag saving crud?
>
> And yes, that means that we'd require X86_FEATURE_INVPCID in order to
> use X86_FEATURE_PCID, but that seems fine.
I have an SNB "Extreme" with PCID but not INVPCID, and there could be
a whole generation of servers like that. I think we should fully
support them.
We might be able to get away with just disabling preemption instead of
IRQs, at least if mm == active_mm.
>
> Or is there some reason you wanted the odd flags version? If so, that
> should be documented.
What do you mean "odd"?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>