Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] x86/mm: Try to preserve old TLB entries using PCID

[Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:04:39AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:53:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > >> @@ -104,18 +140,20 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
>> > >>
>> > >>               /* Resume remote flushes and then read tlb_gen. */
>> > >>               cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
>> > >
>> > > Barriers should have a comment... what is being ordered here against
>> > > what?
>> >
>> > How's this comment?
>> >
>> >         /*
>> >          * Resume remote flushes and then read tlb_gen.  We need to do
>> >          * it in this order: any inc_mm_tlb_gen() caller that writes a
>> >          * larger tlb_gen than we read here must see our cpu set in
>> >          * mm_cpumask() so that it will know to flush us.  The barrier
>> >          * here synchronizes with inc_mm_tlb_gen().
>> >          */
>>
>> Slightly confusing, you mean this, right?
>>
>>
>>       cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask());                     inc_mm_tlb_gen();
>>
>>       MB                                                      MB
>>
>>       next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen);   flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask());
>>
>>
>> which seems to make sense.
>
> Btw., I'll wait for a v5 iteration before applying this last patch to tip:x86/mm.

I'll send it shortly.  I think I'll also add a patch to factor out the
flush calls a bit more to prepare for Mel's upcoming fix.

>
> Thanks,
>
>         Ingo