[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xen-devel] Re: Question about x86/mm/gup.c's use of disabled interrupts


  • To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:32:04 +1100
  • Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:32:44 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=WdezK3i4Gz/Asgf4xIWC4VF4QYZJDS6KLCbVpPvbob+C0Yzpq8Yxg/I2hYq+lj2Ir4LitiKCS4KrjrN/4uoS4Xj43LoX8WmHCYaJetmhdJC8qH/N2SFrD55Gz3L57lHv6a27NTBgiwXPbNduCrDAXfjuontgultt9x+X+wTuohs= ;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

Hi Jeremy,

I think you got most of your questions already hashed out, but
I could make a suggestion...

On Thursday 19 March 2009 06:17:03 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I don't believe it is possible to have a *new* pte installed until
the flush is done.


> Is this the only reason to disable
> interrupts?  Would we need to do it for the !PAE cases?

It has to pin page tables, and pin pages as well.


> 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.

FWIW, powerpc actually can flush tlbs without IPIs, and it also has
a gup_fast. powerpc RCU frees its page _tables_ so we can walk them,
and then I use speculative page references in order to be able to
take a reference on the page without having it pinned.

Turning gup_get_pte into a pvop would be a bit nasty because on !PAE
it is just a single load, and even on PAE it is pretty cheap.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.