Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to flush_pmd_tlb_range

Zhenyu Ye
2020-04-08T09:01:18Z

Hi Peter,

On 2020/4/3 13:14, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 2020/4/3 0:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:24:04PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
>>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I notice that you used
>>> `tlb_end_vma` replace `flush_tlb_range`, which will call `tlb_flush`,
>>> then finally call `flush_tlb_range` in generic code. However, some
>>> architectures define tlb_end_vma|tlb_flush|flush_tlb_range themselves,
>>> so this may cause problems.
>>>
>>> For example, in s390, it defines:
>>>
>>> #define tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma) do { } while (0)
>>>
>>> And it doesn't define it's own flush_pmd_tlb_range(). So there will be
>>> a mistake if we changed flush_pmd_tlb_range() using tlb_end_vma().
>>>
>>> Is this really a problem or something I understand wrong ?
>>
>> If tlb_end_vma() is a no-op, then tlb_finish_mmu() will do:
>> tlb_flush_mmu() -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() -> tlb_flush()
>>
>> And s390 has tlb_flush().
>>
>> If tlb_end_vma() is not a no-op and it calls tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(),
>> then tlb_finish_mmu()'s invocation of tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() will
>> terniate early due o no flags set.
>>
>> IOW, it should all just work.
>>
>>
>> FYI the whole tlb_{start,end}_vma() thing is a only needed when the
>> architecture doesn't implement tlb_flush() and instead default to using
>> flush_tlb_range(), at which point we need to provide a 'fake' vma.
>>
>> At the time I audited all architectures and they only look at VM_EXEC
>> (to do $I invalidation) and VM_HUGETLB (for pmd level invalidations),
>> but I forgot which architectures that were.
>
> Many architectures, such as alpha, arc, arm and so on.
> I really understand why you hate making vma->vm_flags more important for
> tlbi :).
>
>> But that is all legacy code; eventually we'll get all archs a native
>> tlb_flush() and this can go away.
>>
>
> Thanks for your reply. Currently, to enable the TTL feature, extending
> the flush_*tlb_range() may be more convenient.
> I will send a formal PATCH soon.
>
> Thanks,
> Zhenyu
>

I had sent [PATCH v1] a few days ago[1]. Do you have time to review
my changes? Are those changes appropriate?

Waiting for your suggestion.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200403090048.938-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com/

Thanks,
Zhenyu