Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the tip tree

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 06:06:32AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > however mm_tlb_flush_nested() is a mystery, it appears to care about
> > anything inside the range. For now rely on it doing at least _a_ PTL
> > lock instead of taking  _the_ PTL lock.
> 
> It does not care about âanythingâ inside the range, but only on situations
> in which there is at least one (same) PT that was modified by one core and
> then read by the other. So, yes, it will always be _the_ same PTL, and not
> _a_ PTL - in the cases that flush is really needed.
> 
> The issue that might require additional barriers is that
> inc_tlb_flush_pending() and mm_tlb_flush_nested() are called when the PTL is
> not held. IIUC, since the release-acquire might not behave as a full memory
> barrier, this requires an explicit memory barrier.

So I'm not entirely clear about this yet.

How about:


	CPU0				CPU1

					tlb_gather_mmu()

					lock PTLn
					no mod
					unlock PTLn

	tlb_gather_mmu()

					lock PTLm
					mod
					include in tlb range
					unlock PTLm

	lock PTLn
	mod
	unlock PTLn

					tlb_finish_mmu()
					  force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
					  arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


	... more ...

	tlb_finish_mmu()



In this case you also want CPU1's mm_tlb_flush_nested() call to return
true, right?

But even with an smp_mb__after_atomic() at CPU0's tlg_bather_mmu()
you're not guaranteed CPU1 sees the increment. The only way to do that
is to make the PTL locks RCsc and that is a much more expensive
proposition.


What about:


	CPU0				CPU1

					tlb_gather_mmu()

					lock PTLn
					no mod
					unlock PTLn


					lock PTLm
					mod
					include in tlb range
					unlock PTLm

	tlb_gather_mmu()

	lock PTLn
	mod
	unlock PTLn

					tlb_finish_mmu()
					  force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);
					  arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


	... more ...

	tlb_finish_mmu()

Do we want CPU1 to see it here? If so, where does it end?


	CPU0				CPU1

					tlb_gather_mmu()

					lock PTLn
					no mod
					unlock PTLn


					lock PTLm
					mod
					include in tlb range
					unlock PTLm

					tlb_finish_mmu()
					  force = mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm);

	tlb_gather_mmu()

	lock PTLn
	mod
	unlock PTLn

					  arch_tlb_finish_mmu(force);


	... more ...

	tlb_finish_mmu()


This?


Could you clarify under what exact condition mm_tlb_flush_nested() must
return true?