From: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: slpratt@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.0-test10-pre6 TLB flush race in establish_pte
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:42:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C1256989.0066C1B8.00@d12mta01.de.ibm.com> (raw)
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:31:22PM -0600, Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM wrote:
>> [..] no patch ever
>> appeared. [..]
>
>You didn't followed l-k closely enough as the strict fix was submitted two
>times but it got not merged. (maybe because it had an #ifdef __s390__ that
was
>_necessary_ by that time?)
Unfortunately, the current code is racey even on the S/390.
We originally wanted to use the IPTE instruction to flush
a particular TLB entry, and this requires that the old PTE
value is still present at the time IPTE is performed.
Thus we wanted to place IPTE inside flush_tlb_page, and have
flush_tlb_page called before the new PTE is written. However,
even with the current establish_pte routine this doesn't work,
as flush_tlb_page is called from several other places *after*
the PTE has been changed, so we still cannot actually use IPTE.
So, what we do now is simply flush the complete TLB in
flush_tlb_page, and don't use IPTE at all. This is obviously
not ideal, but at least correct. Except, that is, for the
race condition in establish_pte that we now share with the
other architectures :-/
IMO you should apply Steve's patch (without any #ifdef __s390__) now.
However, we'd like to look further for a more general solution
that would allow us to make use of IPTE again in the future.
This would possibly involve something like making establish_pte
architecture-specific.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
Ulrich Weigand
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux for S/390 Design & Development
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen
Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 --- Email: Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com
--
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.eu.org/Linux-MM/
next reply other threads:[~2000-10-31 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-10-31 18:42 Ulrich.Weigand [this message]
2000-10-31 19:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-10-30 21:31 Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM
2000-10-30 21:39 ` Kanoj Sarcar
2000-10-31 0:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C1256989.0066C1B8.00@d12mta01.de.ibm.com \
--to=ulrich.weigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=slpratt@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox