Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Disabling the interrupt will prevent the tlb flush IPI from coming in 
> > and flushing this cpu's tlb, but I don't see how it will prevent some 
> > other cpu from actually updating the pte in the pagetable, which is 
> > what we're concerned about here.  
>
> The thread that cleared the pte holds the pte lock and is now waiting 
> for the IPI.  The thread that wants to update the pte will wait for 
> the pte lock, thus also waits on the IPI and gup_fast()'s 
> local_irq_enable().  I think.

But hasn't it already done the pte update at that point?

(I think this conversation really is moot because the kernel never does 
P->P pte updates any more; its always P->N->P.)

> > Is this the only reason to disable interrupts?  
>
> Another comment says it also prevents pagetable teardown.

We could take a reference to the mm to get the same effect, no?

> > Also, assuming that disabling the interrupt is enough to get the 
> > guarantees we need here, there's a Xen problem because we don't use 
> > IPIs for cross-cpu tlb flushes (well, it happens within Xen).  I'll 
> > have to think a bit about how to deal with that, but I'm thinking 
> > that we could add a per-cpu "tlb flushes blocked" flag, and maintain 
> > some kind of per-cpu deferred tlb flush count so we can get around to 
> > doing the flush eventually.
>
> I was thinking about adding a hypercall for cross-vcpu tlb flushes.  
> Guess I'll wait for you to clear up all the issues first.

Typical...

   J

--
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/