From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:12:27 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ARMv7: Invalidate the TLB before freeing page tables In-Reply-To: <1297780926.14691.164.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20110214173958.21717.30746.stgit@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20110215103127.GC4152@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1297767748.14691.15.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20110215113242.GD4152@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110215121437.GG4152@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1297780926.14691.164.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20110220121227.GB14495@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 02:42:06PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:14 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 11:32:42AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > The point of TLB shootdown is that we unmap the entries from the page > > > tables, then issue the TLB flushes, and then free the pages and page > > > tables after that. All that Peter's patch tries to do is to get ARM to > > > use the generic stuff. > > > > As Peter's patch preserves the current behaviour, that's not sufficient. > > So, let's do this our own way and delay pages and page table frees on > > ARMv6 and v7. Untested. > > ARMv7 should be enough, I'm not aware of any pre-v7 with this behaviour. ARM11MPCore. Any SMP system can access a page which was free'd by the tlb code but hasn't been flushed from the hardware TLBs. So maybe we want it to be "defined(CONFIG_SMP) || defined(CONFIG_CPU_32v7)" ? > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/tlb.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/tlb.h > > index f41a6f5..1ca3e16 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/tlb.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/tlb.h > > @@ -30,6 +30,16 @@ > > #include > > > > /* > > + * As v6 and v7 speculatively prefetch, which can drag new entries into the > > + * TLB, we need to delay freeing pages and page tables. > > + */ > > +#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_32v6) || defined(CONFIG_CPU_32v7) > > +#define tlb_fast_mode(tlb) 0 > > +#else > > +#define tlb_fast_mode(tlb) 1 > > +#endif > > We could make this v7 only. If you want it to be more dynamic, we can > check the MMFR0[3:0] bits (Cortex-A15 sets them to 4). But > architecturally we should assume that intermediate page table levels may > be cached. I don't think that a runtime check justifies the optimization. We're talking about the difference between storing a set of pages in an array and freeing them later vs freeing them one at a time. Doing a test per page is probably more expensive than just storing them in an array. > > -#define tlb_remove_page(tlb,page) free_page_and_swap_cache(page) > > -#define pte_free_tlb(tlb, ptep, addr) pte_free((tlb)->mm, ptep) > > +#define pte_free_tlb(tlb, ptep, addr) __pte_free_tlb(tlb, ptep, addr) > > #define pmd_free_tlb(tlb, pmdp, addr) pmd_free((tlb)->mm, pmdp) > > With LPAE, we'll need a __pmd_free_tlb() but I can add this as part of > my patches. Yes. > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas Thanks.