Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Balbir Singh <sblbir@amazon.com>
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v5.8
In-Reply-To: <b159ba4c53fcf04cc4eb747c45e1d4d2d83310a3.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
References: <20200601170102.GA1346815@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wgXf_wQ9zrJKv2Hy4EpEbLuqty-Cjbs2u00gm7XcYHBfw@mail.gmail.com> <20200602073350.GA481221@gmail.com> <b159ba4c53fcf04cc4eb747c45e1d4d2d83310a3.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date:   Tue, 02 Jun 2020 20:28:50 +0200
Message-ID: <871rmxgw4d.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> On Tue, 2020-06-02 at 09:33 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Or rather, we should ask a higher level question as well, maybe we 
>> should not do this feature at all?
>
> Well, it does solve a real issue in some circumstances and there was a
> reasonable discussion about this on the list that lead to it being
> merged with Kees and Thomas (and others) agreeing :)
>
> But yes, it is pointless with SMT and yes maybe we should make it
> explicitly do nothing on SMT, but let's not throw the baby out with the
> bath water shall we ?

It's trivial enough to fix. We have a static key already which is
telling us whether SMT scheduling is active.

Thanks,

        tglx
---
 arch/x86/mm/tlb.c |    3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 #include <linux/export.h>
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/debugfs.h>
+#include <linux/sched/smt.h>
 
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
@@ -457,7 +458,7 @@ static void cond_mitigation(struct task_
 			indirect_branch_prediction_barrier();
 	}
 
-	if (prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH) {
+	if (!sched_smt_active() && prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH) {
 		/*
 		 * Don't populate the TLB for the software fallback flush.
 		 * Populate TLB is not needed for this use case.