From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, nadav.amit@gmail.com, mgorman@suse.de,
riel@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: migrate: fix barriers around tlb_flush_pending
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:04:49 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170727000449.GA32138@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170726150214.11320-3-namit@vmware.com>
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 08:02:14AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Reading tlb_flush_pending while the page-table lock is taken does not
> require a barrier, since the lock/unlock already acts as a barrier.
> Removing the barrier in mm_tlb_flush_pending() to address this issue.
>
> However, migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page() calls mm_tlb_flush_pending()
> while the page-table lock is already released, which may present a
> problem on architectures with weak memory model (PPC). Use
> smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() in that case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> ---
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 18 ++++++++++++------
> mm/migrate.c | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> index 36f4ec589544..312eec5690d4 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -522,12 +522,12 @@ static inline cpumask_t *mm_cpumask(struct mm_struct *mm)
> /*
> * Memory barriers to keep this state in sync are graciously provided by
> * the page table locks, outside of which no page table modifications happen.
> - * The barriers below prevent the compiler from re-ordering the instructions
> - * around the memory barriers that are already present in the code.
> + * The barriers are used to ensure the order between tlb_flush_pending updates,
> + * which happen while the lock is not taken, and the PTE updates, which happen
> + * while the lock is taken, are serialized.
> */
> static inline bool mm_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> - barrier();
> return atomic_read(&mm->tlb_flush_pending) > 0;
> }
> static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> @@ -535,15 +535,21 @@ static inline void set_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> atomic_inc(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
>
> /*
> - * Guarantee that the tlb_flush_pending store does not leak into the
> + * Guarantee that the tlb_flush_pending increase does not leak into the
> * critical section updating the page tables
> */
> smp_mb__before_spinlock();
> }
> -/* Clearing is done after a TLB flush, which also provides a barrier. */
> +
> static inline void clear_tlb_flush_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> - barrier();
> + /*
> + * Guarantee that the tlb_flush_pending does not not leak into the
> + * critical section, since we must order the PTE change and changes to
> + * the pending TLB flush indication. We could have relied on TLB flush
> + * as a memory barrier, but this behavior is not clearly documented.
> + */
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> atomic_dec(&mm->tlb_flush_pending);
> }
> #else
> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
> index 89a0a1707f4c..85c7134d70cc 100644
> --- a/mm/migrate.c
> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
> @@ -1935,6 +1935,15 @@ int migrate_misplaced_transhuge_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
> put_page(new_page);
> goto out_fail;
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * mm_tlb_flush_pending() is safe if it is executed while the page-table
> + * lock is taken. But here, it is executed while the page-table lock is
> + * already released. This requires a full memory barrier on
> + * architectures with weak memory models.
> + */
> + smp_mb__after_unlock_lock();
> +
As you saw my work, I will use mm_tlb_flush_pending in tlb_finish_mmu where
page-table lock is already released. So, I should use same comment/barrier
in there, too.
Like that, mm_tlb_flush_pending user should be aware of whether he is
calling the mm_tlb_flush_pending inside of pte lock or not.
I think it would be better to say about it as function interface.
IOW,
bool mm_tlb_flush_pending(bool pte_locked)
Otherwise, at least, I hope comment you wrote in here should be in
mm_tlb_flush_pending for users to catch it up.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-27 0:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-26 15:02 [PATCH v2 0/2] mm: fixes of tlb_flush_pending Nadav Amit
2017-07-26 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: migrate: prevent racy access to tlb_flush_pending Nadav Amit
2017-07-27 6:48 ` Mel Gorman
2017-07-29 23:50 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-26 15:02 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: migrate: fix barriers around tlb_flush_pending Nadav Amit
2017-07-27 0:04 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170727000449.GA32138@bbox \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).