Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:31:22PM -0600, Steve Pratt/Austin/IBM wrote:
>> [..] no patch ever
>> appeared. [..]
>
>You didn't followed l-k closely enough as the strict fix was submitted two
>times but it got not merged. (maybe because it had an #ifdef __s390__ that
was
>_necessary_ by that time?)
Unfortunately, the current code is racey even on the S/390.
We originally wanted to use the IPTE instruction to flush
a particular TLB entry, and this requires that the old PTE
value is still present at the time IPTE is performed.
Thus we wanted to place IPTE inside flush_tlb_page, and have
flush_tlb_page called before the new PTE is written. However,
even with the current establish_pte routine this doesn't work,
as flush_tlb_page is called from several other places *after*
the PTE has been changed, so we still cannot actually use IPTE.
So, what we do now is simply flush the complete TLB in
flush_tlb_page, and don't use IPTE at all. This is obviously
not ideal, but at least correct. Except, that is, for the
race condition in establish_pte that we now share with the
other architectures :-/
IMO you should apply Steve's patch (without any #ifdef __s390__) now.
However, we'd like to look further for a more general solution
that would allow us to make use of IPTE again in the future.
This would possibly involve something like making establish_pte
architecture-specific.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards
Ulrich Weigand
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux for S/390 Design & Development
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH, Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen
Phone: +49-7031/16-3727 --- Email: [email protected]
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 07:42:21PM +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> IMO you should apply Steve's patch (without any #ifdef __s390__) now.
Agreed.
Andrea