Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: embed TLB flush IPI check in tlb_remove_table_sync_one()

["David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@kernel.org>]

On 12/29/25 15:52, Lance Yang wrote:
> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
> 
> Embed the tlb_table_flush_implies_ipi_broadcast() check directly inside
> tlb_remove_table_sync_one() instead of requiring every caller to check
> it explicitly. This relies on callers to do the right thing: flush with
> freed_tables=true or unshared_tables=true beforehand.
> 
> All existing callers satisfy this requirement:
> 
> 1. mm/khugepaged.c:1188 (collapse_huge_page):
> 
>     pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, address, pmd)
>     -> flush_tlb_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE)
>        -> flush_tlb_mm_range(mm, ..., freed_tables = true)
>           -> flush_tlb_multi(mm_cpumask(mm), info)
> 
>     So freed_tables=true before calling tlb_remove_table_sync_one().
> 
> 2. include/asm-generic/tlb.h:861 (tlb_flush_unshared_tables):
> 
>     tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb)
>     -> tlb_flush(tlb)
>        -> flush_tlb_mm_range(mm, ..., unshared_tables = true)
>           -> flush_tlb_multi(mm_cpumask(mm), info)
> 
>     unshared_tables=true (equivalent to freed_tables for sending IPIs).
> 
> 3. mm/mmu_gather.c:341 (__tlb_remove_table_one):
> 
>     When we can't allocate a batch page in tlb_remove_table(), we do:
> 
>     tlb_table_invalidate(tlb)
>     -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb)
>        -> flush_tlb_mm_range(mm, ..., freed_tables = true)
>           -> flush_tlb_multi(mm_cpumask(mm), info)
> 
>     Then:
>     tlb_remove_table_one(table)
>     -> __tlb_remove_table_one(table) // if !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM
>        -> tlb_remove_table_sync_one()
> 
>     freed_tables=true, and this should work too.
> 
>     Why is tlb->freed_tables guaranteed? Because callers like
>     pte_free_tlb() (via free_pte_range) set freed_tables=true before
>     calling __pte_free_tlb(), which then calls tlb_remove_table().
>     We cannot free page tables without freed_tables=true.
> 
>     Note that tlb_remove_table_sync_one() was a NOP on bare metal x86
>     (CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE=n) before commit a37259732a7d
>     ("x86/mm: Make MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE unconditional").
> 
> 4-5. mm/khugepaged.c:1683,1819 (pmdp_get_lockless_sync macro):
> 
>     Same as #1. These also use pmdp_collapse_flush() beforehand.
> 
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>

LGTM. I think we should document that somewhere. Can we add some 
kerneldoc for tlb_remove_table_sync_one() where we document that it 
doesn't to any sync if a previous TLB flush when removing/unsharing page 
tables would have already performed an IPI?

> ---
>   mm/mmu_gather.c | 4 ++++
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> index 7468ec388455..7b588643cbae 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> @@ -276,6 +276,10 @@ static void tlb_remove_table_smp_sync(void *arg)
>   
>   void tlb_remove_table_sync_one(void)
>   {
> +	/* Skip the IPI if the TLB flush already synchronized with other CPUs. */
> +	if (tlb_table_flush_implies_ipi_broadcast())
> +		return;
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * This isn't an RCU grace period and hence the page-tables cannot be
>   	 * assumed to be actually RCU-freed.


-- 
Cheers

David