Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86,mm: drop TLB flush from ptep_set_access_flags

[Shentino]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/17/2012 09:56 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know, however, whether it would be prudent to have some sort of
>>> a cheap assertion in the code (cheaper than INVLPG %ADDR, although on
>>> older cpus we do MOV CR3) just in case. This should be enabled only with
>>> DEBUG_VM on, of course...
>>
>>
>> I wonder how we could actually test for it. We'd have to have some
>> per-cpu page-fault address check (along with a generation count on the
>> mm or similar). I doubt we'd figure out anything that works reliably
>> and efficiently and would actually show any problems
>
> Would it be enough to simply print out a warning if we fault
> on the same address twice (or three times) in a row, and then
> flush the local TLB?
>
> I realize this would not just trigger on CPUs that fail to
> invalidate TLB entries that cause faults, but also on kernel
> paths that cause a page fault to be re-taken...

I'm actually curious if the architecture docs/software developer
manuals for IA-32 mandate any TLB invalidations on a #PF

Is there any official vendor documentation on the subject?

And perhaps equally valid, should we trust it if it exists?

> ... but then again, don't we want to find those paths and
> fix them, anyway? :)
>
> --
> All rights reversed
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
--
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/