> > I don't think we can elide the call __tlb_reset_range() entirely, since I
> > think we do want to clear the freed_pXX bits to ensure that we walk the
> > range with the smallest mapping granule that we have. Otherwise couldn't we
> > have a problem if we hit a PMD that had been cleared, but the TLB
> > invalidation for the PTEs that used to be linked below it was still
> > pending?
>
> That's tlb->cleared_p*, and yes agreed. That is, right until some
> architecture has level dependent TLBI instructions, at which point we'll
> need to have them all set instead of cleared.
>
> > Perhaps we should just set fullmm if we see that here's a concurrent
> > unmapper rather than do a worst-case range invalidation. Do you have a
> > feeling
> > for often the mm_tlb_flush_nested() triggers in practice?
>
> Quite a bit for certain workloads I imagine, that was the whole point of
> doing it.
>
> Anyway; am I correct in understanding that the actual problem is that
> we've cleared freed_tables and the ARM64 tlb_flush() will then not
> invalidate the cache and badness happens?
That is my understanding, only last level is flushed, which is not enough.
>
> Because so far nobody has actually provided a coherent description of
> the actual problem we're trying to solve. But I'm thinking something
> like the below ought to do.
I applied it (and fixed small typo: s/tlb->full_mm/tlb->fullmm/).
It fixes the problem for me.
>
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> index 99740e1dd273..fe768f8d612e 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> @@ -244,15 +244,20 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> {
> /*
> - * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
> - * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
> - * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
> - * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
> - * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
> + * Sensible comment goes here..
> */
> - if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
> - __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
> - __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
> + if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->full_mm) {
> + /*
> + * Since we're can't tell what we actually should have
> + * flushed flush everything in the given range.
> + */
> + tlb->start = start;
> + tlb->end = end;
> + tlb->freed_tables = 1;
> + tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
> + tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
> + tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
> + tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
> }
>
> tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
>
