From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: thp: Add write barrier after updating the valid bit
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 12:25:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8761igu008.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1406066112.22200.28.camel@pasglop>
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 00:23 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> > A better place for this would be right before the last write to the PMD
>> > (that's also clearing BUSY) in __hash_page_thp(). Basically, it's the
>> > normal lock ordering that's missing here, nothing specific to
>> > mark_hpte_slot_valid() but instead, any state relative to the BUSY bit
>> > in the PMD (including the actual hash writes in update_pp etc...)
>> >
>>
>> IIUC updatepp already have required barriers. ie in updatepp we do tlbie
>> which should take care of the ordering right ?
>
> Only if it succeeds but that doesn't matter, I'd rather we get the
> semantics right. The clearing of the busy bit is an unlock, it should
> have the appropriate barriers like it does in other variants of hash
> page.
ok
>>
>> Now the reason i moved that spm_wmb() to mark_hpte_slot_valid was to
>> pair it with smb_rmb() in get_hpte_slot_array().
>
> Which is also probably in the wrong place. Care to explain to me the
> exact relationship ?
We want to make sure for usage like below we don't reorder the load.
if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmdp)){
get_hpte_slot_array(pmdp)
}
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-29 6:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-15 14:52 [PATCH] powerpc: thp: Add write barrier after updating the valid bit Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-07-22 5:27 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-07-22 18:53 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2014-07-22 21:55 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-07-29 6:55 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2014-07-29 7:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-07-29 10:37 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-07-15 14:51 Aneesh Kumar K.V
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8761igu008.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.