From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f71.google.com (mail-pl0-f71.google.com [209.85.160.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECFF6B0003 for ; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:25:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl0-f71.google.com with SMTP id 31-v6so6652926plf.19 for ; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 08:25:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 124-v6sor3116259pfg.142.2018.07.07.08.25.45 for (Google Transport Security); Sat, 07 Jul 2018 08:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 01:25:38 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: mm,tlb: revert 4647706ebeee? Message-ID: <20180708012538.51b2c672@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1530896635.5350.25.camel@surriel.com> References: <1530896635.5350.25.camel@surriel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Rik van Riel Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , "kirill.shutemov" , Minchan Kim , Mel Gorman , kernel-team On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 13:03:55 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Hello, > > It looks like last summer, there were 2 sets of patches > in flight to fix the issue of simultaneous mprotect/madvise > calls unmapping PTEs, and some pages not being flushed from > the TLB before returning to userspace. > > Minchan posted these patches: > 56236a59556c ("mm: refactor TLB gathering API") > 99baac21e458 ("mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss problem") > > Around the same time, Mel posted: > 4647706ebeee ("mm: always flush VMA ranges affected by zap_page_range") > > They both appear to solve the same bug. > > Only one of the two solutions is needed. > > However, 4647706ebeee appears to introduce extra TLB > flushes - one per VMA, instead of one over the entire > range unmapped, and also extra flushes when there are > no simultaneous unmappers of the same mm. > > For that reason, it seems like we should revert > 4647706ebeee and keep only Minchan's solution in > the kernel. > > Am I overlooking any reason why we should not revert > 4647706ebeee? Yes I think so. Discussed here recently: https://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=152878780528037&w=2 Actually we realized that powerpc does not implement the mmu gather flushing quite right so it needs a fix before this revert. But I propose the revert for next merge window. Thanks, Nick