Re: Current mainline git (24e700e291d52bd2) hangs when building e.g. perf
From: Andy Lutomirski
Date: Fri Sep 08 2017 - 21:39:36 EST
> On Sep 8, 2017, at 6:05 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I'm not convinced. The SDM says (Vol 3, 11.3, under WC):
>> If the WC buffer is partially filled, the writes may be delayed until
>> the next occurrence of a serializing event; such as, an SFENCE or
>> MFENCE instruction, CPUID execution, a read or write to uncached
>> memory, an interrupt occurrence, or a LOCK instruction execution.
>> Thanks, Intel, for definiing "serializing event" differently here than
>> anywhere else in the whole manual.
> Yeah, it's really badly defined. Ok, maybe a locked instruction does
> actually wait for it.. It should be invisible to anything, regardless.
>> 1. The kernel wants to reclaim a page of normal memory, so it unmaps
>> it and flushes. Another CPU has an entry for that page in its WC
>> buffer. I don't think we care whether the flush causes the WC write
>> to really hit RAM because it's unobservable -- we just need to make
>> sure it is ordered, as seen by software, before the flush operation
>> completes. From the quote above, I think we're okay here.
>> 2. The kernel is unmapping some IO memory (e.g. a GPU command buffer).
>> It wants a guarantee that, when flush_tlb_mm_range returns, all CPUs
>> are really done writing to it. Here I'm less convinced. The SDM
>> quote certainly suggests to me that we have a promise that the WC
>> write has *started* before flush_tlb_mm_range returns, but I'm not
>> sure I believe that it's guaranteed to have retired.
> If others have writable TLB entries, what keeps them from just
> continuing to write for a long time afterwards?
Whoever unmaps the resource by kicking out their drm fd? I admit I'm just trying to think of the worst case.
>> I'd prefer to leave it as is except on the buggy AMD CPUs, though,
>> since the current code is nice and fast.
> So is there a patch to detect the 383 erratum and serialize for those?
> I may have missed that part.
The patch is in my head. It's imaginarily attached to this email.