Thread (41 messages) 41 messages, 7 authors, 2020-11-25

Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm: proc: Avoid fullmm flush for young/dirty bit toggling

From: Yu Zhao <hidden>
Date: 2020-11-20 20:40:23
Also in: linux-mm, lkml

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:57PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
clear_refs_write() uses the 'fullmm' API for invalidating TLBs after
updating the page-tables for the current mm. However, since the mm is not
being freed, this can result in stale TLB entries on architectures which
elide 'fullmm' invalidation.

Ensure that TLB invalidation is performed after updating soft-dirty
entries via clear_refs_write() by using the non-fullmm API to MMU gather.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
---
 fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
index a76d339b5754..316af047f1aa 100644
--- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
+++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
@@ -1238,7 +1238,7 @@ static ssize_t clear_refs_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
 			count = -EINTR;
 			goto out_mm;
 		}
-		tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm(&tlb, mm);
+		tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, 0, TASK_SIZE);
Let's assume my reply to patch 4 is wrong, and therefore we still need
tlb_gather/finish_mmu() here. But then wouldn't this change deprive
architectures other than ARM the opportunity to optimize based on the
fact it's a full-mm flush?

It seems to me ARM's interpretation of tlb->fullmm is a special case,
not the other way around.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help