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: <CAFULd4b=5-=WfF9OPCX+H9VDnsgbN7OBFj-XP=MZ0QqF5WpvQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8736j7gsza.fsf@linux.intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1907152033020.1767@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190715193938.GG32439@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190715193938.GG32439@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:44:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrW1VobMKcDU_zbvgy1DBe5j=iZUp165_q_NHS7+ZffG4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH, x86]: Disable CPA cache flush for selfsnoop targets
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:39 PM Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Right, we don't know where the PAT invocation comes from and whether they
> > are safe to omit flushing the cache. The module load code would be one
> > obvious candidate.
>
> Module load just changes the writable/executable status, right? That shouldn't
> need to flush in any case because it doesn't change the caching attributes.
>

Indeed.  module load should require a single TLB flush and no cache
flushes.  I don't think we're currently efficient enough to do it with
a single TLB flush, but we should be able to...