Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Hm, awkward if flush_tlb_others doesn't IPI...
>>
>
> How can it avoid flushing the tlb on cpu [01]?  It's it's 
> gup_fast()ing a pte, it may as well load it into the tlb.

xen_flush_tlb_others uses a hypercall rather than an IPI, so none of the 
logic which depends on there being an IPI will work.

>> Simplest fix is to make gup_get_pte() a pvop, but that does seem like 
>> putting a red flag in front of an inner-loop hotspot, or something...
>>
>> The per-cpu tlb-flush exclusion flag might really be the way to go.
>
> I don't see how it will work, without changing Xen to look at the flag?
>
> local_irq_disable() is used here to lock out a remote cpu, I don't see 
> why deferring the flush helps.

Well, no, not deferring.  Making xen_flush_tlb_others() spin waiting for 
"doing_gup" to clear on the target cpu.  Or add an explicit notion of a 
"pte update barrier" rather than implicitly relying on the tlb IPI 
(which is extremely convenient when available...).

    J

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>