From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>,
Linu Cherian <Linu.Cherian@arm.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: mm: Provide level hint for flush_tlb_page()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 14:42:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aaWh5XykBfGFIObI@J2N7QTR9R3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260302135602.3716920-14-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Hi Ryan,
On Mon, Mar 02, 2026 at 01:56:00PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Previously tlb invalidations issued by __flush_tlb_page() did not
> contain a level hint. But the function is clearly only ever targeting
> level 3 tlb entries and its documentation agrees:
>
> | this operation only invalidates a single, last-level page-table
> | entry and therefore does not affect any walk-caches
FWIW, I'd have read "last-level" as synonymous with "leaf" (i.e. a Page
or Block entry, which is the last level of walk) rather than level 3
specifically. The architecture uses the term to match the former (e.g.
in the description of TLBI VALE1IS).
If we're tightening up __flush_tlb_page(), I think it'd be worth either
updating the comment to explicitly note that this only applies to level
3 entries, OR update the comment+name to say it applies to leaf entries,
and have it take a level parameter.
> However, it turns out that the function was actually being used to
> invalidate a level 2 mapping via flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd().
> The bug was benign because the level hint was not set so the HW would
> still invalidate the PMD mapping, and also because the TLBF_NONOTIFY
> flag was set, the bounds of the mapping were never used for anything
> else.
I suspect (as above) that the current usage was intentional, legitimate
usage, just poorly documented.
> Now that we have the new and improved range-invalidation API, it is
> trival to fix flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd() to explicitly flush the
> whole range (locally, without notification and last level only). So
> let's do that, and then update __flush_tlb_page() to hint level 3.
Do we never use __flush_tlb_page() to manipulate a level 1 block
mapping? I'd have expected we did the same lazy invalidation for
permission relazation there, but if that's not the case, then this seems
fine in principle.
> Reviewed-by: Linu Cherian <linu.cherian@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 5 +++--
> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index 7039931df4622..b1a96a8f2b17e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -103,8 +103,9 @@ static inline void arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
> #define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(vma, address, ptep) \
> __flush_tlb_page(vma, address, TLBF_NOBROADCAST | TLBF_NONOTIFY)
>
> -#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd(vma, address, pmdp) \
> - __flush_tlb_page(vma, address, TLBF_NOBROADCAST | TLBF_NONOTIFY)
> +#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd(vma, address, pmdp) \
> + __flush_tlb_range(vma, address, address + PMD_SIZE, PMD_SIZE, 2, \
> + TLBF_NOBROADCAST | TLBF_NONOTIFY | TLBF_NOWALKCACHE)
Is there a reason to keep __flush_tlb_page(), rather than defining
flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault() in terms of __flush_tlb_range() with all
the level 3 constants?
Mark.
>
> /*
> * ZERO_PAGE is a global shared page that is always zero: used
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 5096ec7ab8650..958fe97b744e5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long start = round_down(uaddr, PAGE_SIZE);
> unsigned long end = start + PAGE_SIZE;
>
> - __do_flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN,
> + __do_flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, 3,
> TLBF_NOWALKCACHE | flags);
> }
>
> --
> 2.43.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-02 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-02 13:55 [PATCH v3 00/13] arm64: Refactor TLB invalidation API and implementation Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 01/13] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __tlbi_level macro as a C function Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 02/13] arm64: mm: Introduce a C wrapper for by-range TLB invalidation Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 03/13] arm64: mm: Implicitly invalidate user ASID based on TLBI operation Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 04/13] arm64: mm: Push __TLBI_VADDR() into __tlbi_level() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 05/13] arm64: mm: Inline __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE() into __tlbi_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 06/13] arm64: mm: Re-implement the __flush_tlb_range_op macro in C Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 07/13] arm64: mm: Simplify __TLBI_RANGE_NUM() macro Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 08/13] arm64: mm: Simplify __flush_tlb_range_limit_excess() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 09/13] arm64: mm: Refactor flush_tlb_page() to use __tlbi_level_asid() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 10/13] arm64: mm: Refactor __flush_tlb_range() to take flags Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 11/13] arm64: mm: More flags for __flush_tlb_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-03 9:57 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-03 13:54 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-03-03 17:34 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-02 13:55 ` [PATCH v3 12/13] arm64: mm: Wrap flush_tlb_page() around __do_flush_tlb_range() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-03 9:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2026-03-02 13:56 ` [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: mm: Provide level hint for flush_tlb_page() Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 14:42 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2026-03-02 17:39 ` Ryan Roberts
2026-03-02 17:56 ` Mark Rutland
2026-03-13 19:43 ` [PATCH v3 00/13] arm64: Refactor TLB invalidation API and implementation Catalin Marinas
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=aaWh5XykBfGFIObI@J2N7QTR9R3 \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=Linu.Cherian@arm.com \
--cc=ardb@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox