Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] mm: Rework {set,clear,mm}_tlb_flush_pending()

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:02:28AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:45:51AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:15:23AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > arm64 looks good too, although it plays silly games with the first
> > > > barrier, but I trust that to be sufficient.
> > > 
> > > The first barrier only orders prior stores for us, because page table
> > > updates are made using stores. A prior load could be reordered past the
> > > invalidation, but can't make it past the second barrier.
> > 
> > So then you rely on the program not having any loads pending to the
> > address you're about to invalidate, right? Otherwise we can do the TLBI
> > and then the load to insta-repopulate the TLB entry you just wanted
> > dead.
> > 
> > That later DSB ISH is too late for that.
> > 
> > Isn't that somewhat fragile?
> 
> We only initiate the TLB invalidation after the page table update is
> observable to the page table walker, so any repopulation will cause a fill
> using the new page table entry.

Ah, indeed. Might be worth a comment tho.

> > > I really think we should avoid defining TLB invalidation in terms of
> > > smp_mb() because it's a lot more subtle than that.
> > 
> > I'm tempted to say stronger, smp_mb() only provides order, we want full
> > serialization. Everything before stays before and _completes_ before.
> > Everything after happens after (if the primitives actually do something
> > at all of course, sparc64 for instance has no-op flush_tlb*).
> > 
> > While such semantics might be slightly too strong for what we currently
> > need, it is what powerpc, x86 and arm currently implement and are fairly
> > easy to reason about. If we weaken it, stuff gets confusing again.
> 
> My problem with this is that we're strengthening the semantics for no actual
> use-case, but at the same time this will have a real performance impact.

Well, you could put in a dmb(ish) in the local case, that's loads
cheaper than the dsb(ish) you need for the !local case. But OK..

Back to staring at dodgy arch code..