On 02/23/2016 09:22 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:33:45PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 07:19:07PM +0100, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
>>> I'll check with Martin, maybe it is actually trivial, then we can
>>> do a quick test it to rule that one out.
>>
>> Oh. I found a bug in __split_huge_pmd_locked(). Although, not sure if it's
>> _the_ bug.
>>
>> pmdp_invalidate() is called for the wrong address :-/
>> I guess that can be destructive on the architecture, right?
>
> FWIW, arm64 ignores the address parameter for set_pmd_at, so this would
> only result in the TLBI nuking the wrong entries, which is going to be
> tricky to observe in practice given that we install a table entry
> immediately afterwards that maps the same pages. If s390 does more here
> (I see some magic asm using the address), that could be the answer...
This patch does not change the address for set_pmd_at, it does that for the
pmdp_invalidate here (by keeping haddr at the start of the pmd)
---> pmdp_invalidate(vma, haddr, pmd);
pmd_populate(mm, pmd, pgtable);
Without that fix we would clearly have stale tlb entries, no?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
