Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 491B121796
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180125204625.GN2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <c5cc429013c2248ddebe0a8480b172ae70b29733.1516840211.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
 <20180125085820.GV2228@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180125092233.GE2295@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <86541aca-8de7-163d-b620-083dddf29184@linux.intel.com> <20180125135055.GK2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <aeef4a08-7dd3-3d3a-02f4-9b8b4a1461bf@linux.intel.com> <20180125164139.GM2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CALCETrVeb7g+wAP8hox9TEBBWYAFXGzOv5t2aQVrtuW4D6NQQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180125181852.GL2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <aa7cfe53-d8ee-9f56-a5c7-775d878cee15@linux.intel.com>
 <20180125204625.GN2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 13:04:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrUGDeHse24sOygh5EcsXuZHPtZnw3adhzADfn+yKgcOzg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/ibpb: Skip IBPB when we switch back to same
 user process
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:32:46AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>
>> This patch is not ideal as it comes with the caveats that
>> patch 2 tries to close.  I put it out here to see if it can prompt
>> people to come up with a better solution. Keeping active_mm around would
>> have been cleaner but it looks like there are issues that Andy mentioned.
>>
>> The "A -> idle -> A" case would not trigger IBPB if tlb_defer_switch_to_init_mm()
>> is true (non pcid) as we does not change the mm.
>>
>> This patch tries to address the case when we do switch to init_mm and back.
>> Do you still have objections to the approach in this patch
>> to save the last active mm before switching to init_mm?
>
> I still think the existing active_mm is sufficient. Something like:
>
>   switch_mm()
>   {
>         ...
>         if (prev && next != prev)
>                 ibpb();
>         ...
>   }
>
> should work. Because while the idle crud does leave_mm() and PCID does
> enter_lazy_tlb() and both end up doing: switch_mm(NULL, &init_mm, NULL),
> nothing there affects tsk->active_mm.
>
> So over the "A -> idle -> A" transition, active_mm should actually track
> what you want.
>
>

Can we please not rely on any of the active_mm shit?  That thing has
really weird semantics and should just die.

That being said, just stashing last_user_mm without any refcounting
should be fine.  After all, the only thing anyone does with it is
comparing to next, and next is always alive.  Or we could use
last_user_ctx_id, since we already have a never-reused ctx_id for each
mm on x86.

--Andy