Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1710617 > unrolled thread

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip  tree Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-08-14 05:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip  tree Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-08-14 21:00 +0200

#1710617 — Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

Hi Peter,

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 04:04:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Ok, so I have the below to still go on-top.
> 
> Ideally someone would clarify the situation around
> mm_tlb_flush_nested(), because ideally we'd remove the
> smp_mb__after_atomic() and go back to relying on PTL alone.
> 
> This also removes the pointless smp_mb__before_atomic()

I'm not an expert of barrier stuff but IIUC, mm_tlb_flush_nested's
side full memory barrier can go with removing smp_mb__after_atomic
in inc_tlb_flush_pending side?


diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
index 490af494c2da..5ad0e66df363 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
@@ -544,7 +544,12 @@ static inline bool mm_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
  */
 static inline bool mm_tlb_flush_nested(struct mm_struct *mm)
 {
-	return atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_pending) > 1;
+	/*
+	 * atomic_dec_and_test's full memory barrier guarantees
+	 * to see uptodate tlb_flush_pending count in other CPU
+	 * without relying on page table lock.
+	 */
+	return !atomic_dec_and_test(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
 }
 
 static inline void init_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index f571b0eb9816..e90b57bc65fb 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -407,6 +407,10 @@ void tlb_gather_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct mm_struct *mm,
 			unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 {
 	arch_tlb_gather_mmu(tlb, mm, start, end);
+	/*
+	 * couterpart is mm_tlb_flush_nested in tlb_finish_mmu
+	 * which decreases pending count.
+	 */
 	inc_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);
 }
 
@@ -446,9 +450,7 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
 	 *
 	 */
 	bool force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
-
 	arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end, force);
-	dec_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);
 }
 
 /*

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1711351

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:09:14PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> @@ -446,9 +450,7 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>  	 *
>  	 */
>  	bool force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
> -
>  	arch_tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end, force);
> -	dec_tlb_flush_pending(tlb->mm);
>  }

No, I think this breaks all the mm_tlb_flush_pending() users. They need
the decrement to not be visible until the TLB flush is complete.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web