Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759522AbZCRTRU (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:17:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752244AbZCRTRL (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:17:11 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:55725 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111AbZCRTRK (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <49C148AF.5050601@goop.org> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:17:03 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Memory Management List , Xen-devel , Jan Beulich , Ingo Molnar Subject: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1834 Lines: 41 Hi Nick, The comment in arch/x86/mm/gup.c:gup_get_pte() says: [...] What * we do have is the guarantee that a pte will only either go from not * present to present, or present to not present or both -- it will not * switch to a completely different present page without a TLB flush in * between; something that we are blocking by holding interrupts off. Disabling the interrupt will prevent the tlb flush IPI from coming in and flushing this cpu's tlb, but I don't see how it will prevent some other cpu from actually updating the pte in the pagetable, which is what we're concerned about here. Is this the only reason to disable interrupts? Would we need to do it for the !PAE cases? Also, assuming that disabling the interrupt is enough to get the guarantees we need here, there's a Xen problem because we don't use IPIs for cross-cpu tlb flushes (well, it happens within Xen). I'll have to think a bit about how to deal with that, but I'm thinking that we could add a per-cpu "tlb flushes blocked" flag, and maintain some kind of per-cpu deferred tlb flush count so we can get around to doing the flush eventually. But I want to make sure I understand the exact algorithm here. (I couldn't find an instance of a pte update going from present->present anyway; the only caller of set_pte_present is set_pte_vaddr which only operates on kernel mappings, so perhaps this is moot. Oh, look, native_set_pte_present thinks its only called on user mappings... In fact set_pte_present seems to have completely lost its rationale for existing.) Thanks, J -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/