Re: [patch] my mmu notifiers

Nick Piggin
2008-02-19T23:04:37Z

On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 08:27:25AM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:51PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > understand the need for invalidate_begin/invalidate_end pairs at all.
> >
> > The need of the pairs is crystal clear to me: range_begin is needed
> > for GRU _but_only_if_ range_end is called after releasing the
> > reference that the VM holds on the page. _begin will flush the GRU tlb
> > and at the same time it will take a mutex that will block further GRU
> > tlb-miss-interrupts (no idea how they manange those nightmare locking,
> > I didn't even try to add more locking to KVM and I get away with the
> > fact KVM takes the pin on the page itself).
>
> As it turns out, no actual mutex is required. _begin_ simply increments a
> count of active range invalidates, _end_ decrements the count. New TLB
> dropins are deferred while range callouts are active.
>
> This would appear to be racy but the GRU has special hardware that
> simplifies locking. When the GRU sees a TLB invalidate, all outstanding
> misses & potentially inflight TLB dropins are marked by the GRU with a
> "kill" bit. When the dropin finally occurs, the dropin is ignored & the
> instruction is simply restarted. The instruction will fault again & the TLB
> dropin will be repeated. This is optimized for the case where invalidates
> are rare - true for users of the GRU.

OK (thanks to Robin as well). Now I understand why you are using it,
but I don't understand why you don't defer new TLBs after the point
where the linux pte changes. If you can do that, then you look and
act much more like a TLB from the point of view of the Linux vm.