Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: ie3994620:Fastmail
Date:   Mon, 15 Aug 2022 20:52:54 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@google.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 06/11] x86/mm: Provide arch_prctl() interface for LAM
Message-ID: <20220815175254.jwogd3civiny6kas@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20220815041803.17954-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20220815041803.17954-7-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <YvpMDOeVVKIzJhKV@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YvpMDOeVVKIzJhKV@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 03:37:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 07:17:58AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> 
> > +static void enable_lam_func(void *mm)
> > +{
> > +	struct mm_struct *loaded_mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm);
> > +	unsigned long lam_mask;
> > +	unsigned long cr3;
> > +
> > +	if (loaded_mm != mm)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	lam_mask = READ_ONCE(loaded_mm->context.lam_cr3_mask);
> > +
> > +	/* Update CR3 to get LAM active on the CPU */
> > +	cr3 = __read_cr3();
> > +	cr3 &= ~(X86_CR3_LAM_U48 | X86_CR3_LAM_U57);
> > +	cr3 |= lam_mask;
> > +	write_cr3(cr3);
> > +	set_tlbstate_cr3_lam_mask(lam_mask);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits)
> > +{
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LAM))
> > +		return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&mm->context.lock);
> > +
> > +	/* Already enabled? */
> > +	if (mm->context.lam_cr3_mask) {
> > +		ret = -EBUSY;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (!nr_bits) {
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	} else if (nr_bits <= 6) {
> > +		mm->context.lam_cr3_mask = X86_CR3_LAM_U57;
> > +		mm->context.untag_mask =  ~GENMASK(62, 57);
> > +	} else {
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Make lam_cr3_mask and untag_mask visible on other CPUs */
> > +	smp_mb();
> 
> smp_mb() doesn't make visible -- it is about ordering, what does it
> order against that the below on_each_cpu_mask() doesn't already take
> care of?

You are right it is redundant. I will drop it.

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov