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;
Date:   Tue, 31 Mar 2020 10:45:11 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>,
        Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@jonmasters.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, QI Fuli <qi.fuli@fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: tlb: skip tlbi broadcast
Message-ID: <20200331094034.GA1131@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
References: <20200223192520.20808-1-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <20200223192520.20808-4-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <20200309112242.GB2487@mbp>
 <20200314031609.GB2250@redhat.com>
 <20200316140906.GA6220@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200316140906.GA6220@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andrea,

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:09:07PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> AFAICT, this series relies on:
> 
> * An ISB completing prior page table walks when updating TTBR. I don't
>   believe this is necessarily the case, given how things work for an
>   EL1->EL2 transition where there can be ongoing EL1 walks.

I've had confirmation that a DSB is necessary (after the MSR and ISB) to
complete any ongoing translation table walks for the stale context.

Without a DSB, those walks can observe subsequent stores and encounter
the usual set of CONSTRAINED UNPREDICTABLE behaviours (e.g. walking into
MMIO with side-effects, continuing from amalgamted entries, etc). Those
issues are purely to do with the walk, and apply regardless of whether
the resulting translations are architecturally consumed.

> * Walks never being initiated for `inactive` contexts within the current
>   translation regime. e.g. while ASID x is installed, never starting a
>   walk for ASID y. I can imagine that the architecture may permit a form
>   of this starting with intermediate walk entries in the TLBs.

I'm still chasing this point.

Thanks,
Mark.