Re: [PATCH 6.1 337/522] arm64/mm: Enable batched TLB flush in unmap_hotplug_range()

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 23/06/2026 15:25, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 05:02:27PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Tue, 2026-06-16 at 20:28 +0530, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> 6.1-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>>>
>>> [ Upstream commit 48478b9f791376b4b89018d7afdfd06865498f65 ]
>> [...]
>>> @@ -949,15 +953,14 @@ static void unmap_hotplug_pmd_range(pud_
>>>  		WARN_ON(!pmd_present(pmd));
>>>  		if (pmd_sect(pmd)) {
>>>  			pmd_clear(pmdp);
>>> -
>>> -			/*
>>> -			 * One TLBI should be sufficient here as the PMD_SIZE
>>> -			 * range is mapped with a single block entry.
>>> -			 */
>>> -			flush_tlb_kernel_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>>> -			if (free_mapped)
>>> +			if (free_mapped) {
>>> +				/* CONT blocks are not supported in the vmemmap */
>>> +				WARN_ON(pmd_cont(pmd));
>>> +				flush_tlb_kernel_range(addr, addr + PMD_SIZE);
>>
>> It wasn't clear to me from the commit message why this now adds PMD_SIZE
>> rather than PAGE_SIZE.  It seems like this change is fine for Linux
>> 6.13+ with a CPU that supports TLB range flushing, but otherwise results
>> in unnecessarily executing multiple TLB invalidations at intervals of
>> the base page size.
> 
> Hmm, the commit message also makes very little sense to me and so I don't
> understand why this patch has us doing multiple TLB invalidations when
> we run into a !cont, block mapping at the PMD level. The old comment
> (which this patch removes) should still apply afaict.
> 
> Anshuman, Ryan, any ideas what's going on here?

I think this change was probably my fault; Given the API is called
flush_tlb_kernel_range() it seemed like an abuse/hack to pretend we are only
flushing the first PAGE_SIZE of the range. But as I understand it, even if the
HW shatters a block mapping into multiple TLB entries, all of the entries
relating to the block mapping will be invalidated if just one of them intersects
the TLBI range/address. So it should be safe to reapply this hack.

Although ideally I think it would be better if this API took a stride argument;
then intent is clear.

What's the best way to handle this? Submit a patch for mainline that reverts
this part, then get it backported to stable (implying this current patch will
have been applied to stable)?

Thanks,
Ryan


> 
> Will