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
next prev parent 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