Re: [PATCH 06/17] arm: mmu_gather rework
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Feb 28 2011 - 10:04:33 EST
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 14:57 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:18:47PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 12:44 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > unmap_region()
> > > tlb_gather_mmu()
> > > unmap_vmas()
> > > for (; vma; vma = vma->vm_next)
> > > unmao_page_range()
> > > tlb_start_vma() -> flush cache range
> > So why is this correct? Can't we race with a concurrent access to the
> > memory region (munmap() vs other thread access race)? While
> > unmap_region() callers will have removed the vma from the tree so faults
> > will not be satisfied, TLBs might still be present and allow us to
> > access the memory and thereby reloading it in the cache.
> It is my understanding that code sections between tlb_gather_mmu() and
> tlb_finish_mmu() are non-preemptible - that was the case once upon a
> time when this stuff first appeared.
It is still so, but that doesn't help with SMP. The case mentioned above
has two threads running, one doing munmap() and the other is poking at
the memory being unmapped.
Afaict, even when its all non-preemptible, the remote cpu can
re-populate the cache you just flushed through existing TLB entries.
> If that's changed then that change has introduced an unnoticed bug.
I've got such a patch-set pending, but I cannot see how that would
change the semantics other than that the above race becomes possible on
a single CPU.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/