Re: [PATCH V3] powerpc/mm: Fix Multi hit ERAT cause by recent THP update

[Balbir Singh]

On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 16:31 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Balbir Singh <bsingharora@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > > Now we can't depend for mm_cpumask, a parallel find_linux_pte_hugepte
> > > can happen outside that. Now i had a variant for kick_all_cpus_sync that
> > > ignored idle cpus. But then that needs more verification.
> > > 
> > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.ppc.embedded/81105
> > Can be racy as a CPU moves from non-idle to idle
> > 
> > In
> > 
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂpmd_hugepage_update(vma->vm_mm, address, pmdp, ~0UL, 0);
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂ/*
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ* This ensures that generic code that rely on IRQ disabling
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ* to prevent a parallel THP split work as expected.
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂ*/
> > > +ÂÂÂÂÂkick_all_cpus_sync();
> > 
> > pmdp_invalidate()->pmd_hugepage_update() can still run in parallel withÂ
> > find_linux_pte_or_hugepte() and race.. Am I missing something?
> > 
> 
> Yes. But then we make sure that the pte_t returned by
> find_linux_pte_or_hugepte doesn't change to a regular pmd entry by using
> that kick. Now callers of find_lnux_pte_or_hugepte will check for
> _PAGE_PRESENT. So if it called before
> pmd_hugepage_update(_PAGE_PRESENT), we wait for the caller to finish the
> usage (via kick()). Or they bail out after finding _PAGE_PRESENT cleared.

Makes sense, but I would still check the assumption about checking for
_PAGE_PRESENT

Balbir Singh