From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>,
Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
Chris Zankel <chris@zankel.net>,
Marc Gauthier <Marc.Gauthier@tensilica.com>,
linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: TLB and PTE coherency during munmap
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:16:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130603091621.GA23320@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130603090501.GI5910@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 08:09:17AM +0400, Max Filippov wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > What about something like this?
> >
> > With that patch I still get mtest05 firing my TLB/PTE incoherency
> > check in the UP PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY configuration. This happens after
> > zap_pte_range completion in the end of unmap_region because of
> > rescheduling called in the following call chain:
>
> OK, so there two options; completely kill off fast-mode or something
> like the below where we add magic to the scheduler :/
>
> I'm aware people might object to something like the below -- but since
> its a possibility I thought we ought to at least mention it.
>
> For those new to the thread; the problem is that since the introduction
> of preemptible mmu_gather the traditional UP fast-mode is broken.
> Fast-mode is where we free the pages first and flush TLBs later. This is
> not a problem if there's no concurrency, but obviously if you can
> preempt there now is.
>
> I think I prefer completely killing off fast-mode esp. since UP seems to
> go the way of the Dodo and it does away with an exception in the
> mmu_gather code.
>
> Anyway; opinions? Linus, Thomas, Ingo?
Since UP kernels have not been packaged up by major distros for years, and
since the live-patching of SMP kernels (the SMP alternative-instructions
patching machinery) does away with a big chunk of the SMP cost, I guess UP
kernels are slowly becoming like TINY_RCU: interesting but not really a
primary design goal?
( Another reason for reducing SMP vs. UP complexity in this area would be
the fact that we had a few bad regressions lately - the TLB code is not
getting simpler, and bugs are getting discovered and fixed slower. )
At least that's the x86 perspective. ARM might still see it differently?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-03 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAMo8BfL4QfJrfejNKmBDhAVdmE=_Ys6MVUH5Xa3w_mU41hwx0A@mail.gmail.com>
2013-05-26 2:50 ` TLB and PTE coherency during munmap Max Filippov
2013-05-28 7:10 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-29 12:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-29 12:42 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-05-29 12:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-29 17:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-29 22:04 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-05-30 6:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-30 5:04 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-05-30 6:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-30 7:00 ` Vineet Gupta
2013-05-30 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-31 4:09 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-31 7:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-03 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-03 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-06-03 10:01 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-03 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-03 10:09 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-04 9:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-06-05 0:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-06-05 10:26 ` [PATCH] arch, mm: Remove tlb_fast_mode() Peter Zijlstra
2013-05-31 1:40 ` TLB and PTE coherency during munmap Max Filippov
2013-05-28 14:34 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-05-29 3:23 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-28 15:16 ` Michal Hocko
2013-05-28 15:23 ` Catalin Marinas
[not found] ` <CAHkRjk4ZNwZvf_Cv+HqfMManodCkEpCPdZokPQ68z3nVG8-+wg@mail.gmail.com>
2013-05-29 4:15 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-29 10:15 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-05-31 1:26 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-31 9:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2013-06-03 9:16 ` Max Filippov
2013-05-29 12:00 ` Vineet Gupta
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=20130603091621.GA23320@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=Marc.Gauthier@tensilica.com \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@zankel.net \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jcmvbkbc@gmail.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).