mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] mm: arm ready for split ptlock
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:02:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051022170240.GA10631@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510221719370.18047@goblin.wat.veritas.com>

On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 05:22:20PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Signal handling's preserve and restore of iwmmxt context currently
> involves reading and writing that context to and from user space, while
> holding page_table_lock to secure the user page(s) against kswapd.  If
> we split the lock, then the structure might span two pages, secured by
> different locks.  That would be manageable; but it seems simpler just
> to read into and write from a kernel stack buffer, copying that out and
> in without locking (the structure is 160 bytes in size, and here we're
> near the top of the kernel stack).  Or would the overhead be noticeable?

Please contact Nicolas Pitre about that - that was my suggestion,
but ISTR apparantly the overhead is too high.

> arm_syscall's cmpxchg emulation use pte_offset_map_lock, instead of
> pte_offset_map and mm-wide page_table_lock; and strictly, it should now
> also take mmap_sem before descending to pmd, to guard against another
> thread munmapping, and the page table pulled out beneath this thread.

Now that I look at it, it's probably buggy - if the page isn't already
dirty, it will modify without the COW action.  Again, please contact
Nicolas about this.

> Updated two comments in fault-armv.c.  adjust_pte is interesting, since
> its modification of a pte in one part of the mm depends on the lock held
> when calling update_mmu_cache for a pte in some other part of that mm.
> This can't be done with a split page_table_lock (and we've already taken
> the lowest lock in the hierarchy here): so we'll have to disable split
> on arm, unless CONFIG_CPU_CACHE_VIPT to ensures adjust_pte never used.

Well, adjust_pte is extremely critical to ensure correct cache behaviour
(and therefore data integrity) so if split ptlock is incompatible with
this, split ptlock loses.

As far as adjust_pte being called, it's only called for VIVT caches,
which means the configuration has to do if VIVT, disable split ptlock.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

  reply	other threads:[~2005-10-22 17:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-10-22 16:18 [PATCH 0/9] mm: page fault scalability Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:19 ` [PATCH 1/9] mm: i386 sh sh64 ready for split ptlock Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 18:24   ` Paul Mundt
2005-10-22 16:22 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm: arm " Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 17:02   ` Russell King [this message]
2005-10-23  8:27     ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-25  2:45     ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-10-25  6:31       ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-25 14:55         ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-10-25  7:55       ` Russell King
2005-10-25 15:00         ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-10-26  0:20           ` Russell King
2005-10-26  1:26             ` Nicolas Pitre
2005-10-31 22:19             ` Jesper Juhl
2005-10-31 22:27               ` Russell King
2005-10-31 22:34                 ` Jesper Juhl
2005-10-31 22:50                   ` Russell King
2005-10-22 16:23 ` [PATCH 3/9] mm: parisc pte atomicity Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:33   ` Matthew Wilcox
2005-10-22 17:08     ` [parisc-linux] " James Bottomley
2005-10-23  9:02       ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-23 15:05         ` James Bottomley
2005-10-24  4:36           ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-24 14:56             ` James Bottomley
2005-10-24 16:49               ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:24 ` [PATCH 4/9] mm: cris v32 mmu_context_lock Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:25 ` [PATCH 5/9] mm: uml pte atomicity Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:27 ` [PATCH 6/9] mm: uml kill unused Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 19:23   ` Jeff Dike
2005-10-22 16:29 ` [PATCH 7/9] mm: split page table lock Hugh Dickins
2005-10-23 16:54   ` Nikita Danilov
2005-10-23 21:27   ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-23 22:22     ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-24  3:38       ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-24  4:16         ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-24  4:58           ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-24  3:09     ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-23 21:49   ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-24  3:12     ` Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:30 ` [PATCH 8/9] mm: fix rss and mmlist locking Hugh Dickins
2005-10-22 16:31 ` [PATCH 9/9] mm: update comments to pte lock Hugh Dickins
2005-10-23  7:49 ` [PATCH 6/9 take 2] mm: uml kill unused Hugh Dickins

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20051022170240.GA10631@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome