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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154180834787.2060925.7738215365584115230.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <7590EF40-B0CF-40BD-9D29-FB731A2A2E3A@amacapital.net>
In-Reply-To: <7590EF40-B0CF-40BD-9D29-FB731A2A2E3A@amacapital.net>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:57:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hXzBT1LkEdBYw_mkrKV+SK1LRE2PwJ5=T+e7GxWbXaNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pat: Fix missing preemption disable for __native_flush_tlb()
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:22 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wro=
te:
> >
> > Commit f77084d96355 "x86/mm/pat: Disable preemption around
> > __flush_tlb_all()" addressed a case where __flush_tlb_all() is called
> > without preemption being disabled. It also left a warning to catch othe=
r
> > cases where preemption is not disabled. That warning triggers for the
> > memory hotplug path which is also used for persistent memory enabling:
>
> I don=E2=80=99t think I agree with the patch. If you call __flush_tlb_all=
() in a context where you might be *migrated*, then there=E2=80=99s a bug. =
We could change the code to allow this particular use by checking that we h=
aven=E2=80=99t done SMP init yet, perhaps.

Hmm, are saying the entire kernel_physical_mapping_init() sequence
needs to run with pre-emption disabled?