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

From: Will Deacon
Date: Wed Aug 02 2017 - 04:15:29 EST

On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 10:11:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 11:23:12AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 00:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > PowerPC for example uses PTESYNC before the TBLIE, so does a SYNC after
> > > > work? Ben?
> > > > From what I gather it is not. You have TLBSYNC for it. So the good news
> >
> > tlbsync is pretty much a nop these days. ptesync is a strict superset
> > of sync and we have it after every tlbie.
> In the radix code, yes. I got lost going through the hash code, and I
> didn't look at the 32bit code at all.
> So the radix code does:
> which should be completely ordered against anything prior and anything
> following, and is I think the behaviour we want from TLB flushes in
> general, but is very much not provided by a number of architectures
> afaict.
> Ah, found the hash-64 code, yes that's good too. The hash32 code lives
> in asm and confuses me, it has a bunch of SYNC, SYNC_601 and isync in.
> The nohash variant seems to do a isync after tlbwe, but again no clue.
> Now, do I go and attempt fixing all that needs fixing?
> x86 is good, our CR3 writes or INVLPG stuff is fully serializing.
> arm is good, it does DSB ISH before and after
> 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.

I really think we should avoid defining TLB invalidation in terms of
smp_mb() because it's a lot more subtle than that.