From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
shaggy@austin.ibm.com, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2]: introduce fast_gup
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:58:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <480870E2.20507@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1208448768.7115.30.camel@twins>
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 08:25 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>> Would this be sufficient to address that comment's conern?
>>>
>> It would be nicer to just add a "native_get_pte()" to x86, to match the
>> already-existing "native_set_pte()".
>>
>
> See, I _knew_ I was missing something obvious :-/
>
>
>> And that "barrier()" should b "smp_rmb()". They may be the same code
>> sequence, but from a conceptual angle, "smp_rmb()" makes a whole lot more
>> sense.
>>
>> Finally, I don't think that comment is correct in the first place. It's
>> not that simple. The thing is, even *with* the memory barrier in place, we
>> may have:
>>
>> CPU#1 CPU#2
>> ===== =====
>>
>> fast_gup:
>> - read low word
>>
>> native_set_pte_present:
>> - set low word to 0
>> - set high word to new value
>>
>> - read high word
>>
>> - set low word to new value
>>
>> and so you read a low word that is associated with a *different* high
>> word! Notice?
>>
>> So trivial memory ordering is _not_ enough.
>>
>> So I think the code literally needs to be something like this
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PAE
>>
>> static inline pte_t native_get_pte(pte_t *ptep)
>> {
>> pte_t pte;
>>
>> retry:
>> pte.pte_low = ptep->pte_low;
>> smp_rmb();
>> pte.pte_high = ptep->pte_high;
>> smp_rmb();
>> if (unlikely(pte.pte_low != ptep->pte_low)
>> goto retry;
>> return pte;
>> }
>>
>> #else
>>
>> #define native_get_pte(ptep) (*(ptep))
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> but I have admittedly not really thought it fully through.
>>
>
> Looks sane here; Clark can you give this a spin?
>
> Jeremy, did I get the paravirt stuff right?
>
You shouldn't need to do anything special for paravirt. set_pte is
necessary because it may have side-effects (like a hypervisor call), but
get_pte should be side-effect free. There's no other need for it; any
special processing on the pte value itself is done in pte_val().
J
--
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:[~2008-04-18 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-28 2:54 [patch 0/2]: lockless get_user_pages patchset Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 2:55 ` [patch 1/2]: x86: implement pte_special Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 3:23 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 3:31 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 3:44 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:04 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:09 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:15 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:16 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:19 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 4:17 ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 3:00 ` [patch 2/2]: introduce fast_gup Nick Piggin
2008-03-28 10:01 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-17 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-17 15:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-17 16:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-17 16:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-17 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-17 16:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-17 17:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-17 18:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-22 3:14 ` Nick Piggin
2008-04-18 6:31 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2008-04-18 14:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2008-04-18 9:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-04-21 12:00 ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-21 12:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-21 13:26 ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-21 14:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-22 3:23 ` Nick Piggin
2008-04-22 7:19 ` Avi Kivity
2008-04-22 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-22 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-04-22 9:46 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-14 18:33 ` Dave Kleikamp
2008-05-15 1:13 ` Nick Piggin
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=480870E2.20507@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=shaggy@austin.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=williams@redhat.com \
/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).