On 10/26/2012 02:02 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
Would tlb_fix_spurious_fault take care of that on those
architectures?
.. assuming that they implement it as a real TLB flush, yes.
But maybe the architecture never noticed that it happened to depend on
the fact that we do a cross-CPU invalidate? So a missing
tlb_fix_spurious_fault() implementation could cause a short loop of
repeated page faults, until the IPI happens. And it would be so
incredibly rare that nobody would ever have noticed.
And if that could have happened, then with the cross-cpu invalidate
removed, the "incredibly rare short-lived constant page fault retry"
could turn into "incredibly rare lockup due to infinite page fault
retry due to TLB entry that never turns dirty despite it being marked
dirty by SW in the in-memory page tables".
I suspect the next context switch would flush out the TLB,
making it a slowdown, not a lockup.
Still a good reason to make such a change in its own commit,
so it can be bisected and tracked down.
The commit message could tell architecture maintainers what
to do if this particular commit got them into trouble:
implement a proper local TLB flush in tlb_fix_spurious_fault.
I'll send this in as a separate patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
