LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <>
To: Hugh Dickins <>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Andi Kleen <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: preempt bug in set_pmd_pfn?
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:48:41 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Please, Ingo, could you give an example of where such additional locking
> is actually necessary?
> I ask because I went over those places when splitting the page_table_lock
> for userspace in 2.6.15.  Some things took init_mm.page_table_lock and
> some things didn't, and I concluded that actually none of them needed it.
> With the userspace pagetables, we need to guard against racing threads
> and vmscan/rmap.  But with the kernel pagetables, we'd already be in
> serious trouble if two cpus could be modifying the same pte at the
> same time - there needs to be other serialization already e.g. vmalloc
> has its own locking for parcelling out areas to different uses, so down
> at the page table level there should be no conflict.
> Allocation of new page tables, yes, that needs locking, and does use
> the page_table_lock for kernel space just as for user space.
> That was all two years ago, I may have been wrong then, or a lot may
> have changed since.  But I've heard of a grand total of 0 problems
> from not having such locking.

It's not obvious to me what problems might arise, but the Xen set_pte 
operations do currently rely on preemption being inhibited.  At worst I 
can add preempt_disable/enable calls to them.

> And on the original topic of flush TLB without preemption disabled:
> again I'm not sure there's a bug there, but it's less clear.  Aren't
> some of those __flush_tlb_ones just unnecessary, we're simply filling
> a previously empty slot?  And if there's a guarantee that preemption
> will itself involve a TLB flush (maybe there's no such guarantee for
> these kernel entries, it's quite a different case from the userspace
> one, and you'll be worrying about the global bit), if, then it'd be
> okay to __flush_tlb_one without disabling preemption.

If a thread goes from processor A -> B -> A, where A is first preempted 
between a pagetable update and a tlb flush, then the second time the 
thread runs on A may run with a stale tlb (if in the meantime A has 
either been idle or only running kernel threads).


  reply	other threads:[~2008-03-05 16:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-04 21:13 Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-04 21:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-04 21:27   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05  6:48     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-05 14:29       ` Hugh Dickins
2008-03-05 16:48         ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-03-05 17:38           ` Hugh Dickins
2008-03-05 19:18             ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05 20:40               ` Hugh Dickins
2008-03-06 12:52               ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-06 18:19                 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05 16:45       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05  0:06 ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-05  0:07   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05  0:16     ` Andi Kleen
2008-03-05  0:19       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-05  1:28         ` Andi Kleen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: preempt bug in set_pmd_pfn?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).