lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/mm/pat: Fix missing preemption disable for __native_flush_tlb()
[ added Kirill ]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 4:19 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 2018, at 3:57 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:22 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 9, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Commit f77084d96355 "x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around
> >>> __flush_tlb_all()" addressed a case where __flush_tlb_all() is called
> >>> without preemption being disabled. It also left a warning to catch other
> >>> cases where preemption is not disabled. That warning triggers for the
> >>> memory hotplug path which is also used for persistent memory enabling:
> >>
> >> I don’t think I agree with the patch. If you call __flush_tlb_all() in a context where you might be *migrated*, then there’s a bug. We could change the code to allow this particular use by checking that we haven’t done SMP init yet, perhaps.
> >
> > Hmm, are saying the entire kernel_physical_mapping_init() sequence
> > needs to run with pre-emption disabled?
>
> If it indeed can run late in boot or after boot, then it sure looks buggy. Either the __flush_tlb_all() should be removed or it should be replaced with flush_tlb_kernel_range(). It’s unclear to me why a flush is needed at all, but if it’s needed, surely all CPUs need flushing.

Yeah, I don't think __flush_tlb_all() is needed at
kernel_physical_mapping_init() time, and at
kernel_physical_mapping_remove() time we do a full flush_tlb_all().

Kirill?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-11 01:33    [W:0.094 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site