* questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
@ 2008-11-18 15:20 Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 15:44 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2008-11-18 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel Kernel
I'm looking at adding some code into powerpc for doing tlb invalidate
broadcasts via IPI and am looking at the x86 code as a model. I was
wondering how the x86 code ensures we aren't interrupted in the
process of doing something like flush_tlb_page().
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
2008-11-18 15:20 questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates Kumar Gala
@ 2008-11-18 15:44 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 15:51 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2008-11-18 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linux-kernel Kernel
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:20, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm looking at adding some code into powerpc for doing tlb invalidate
> broadcasts via IPI and am looking at the x86 code as a model. I was
> wondering how the x86 code ensures we aren't interrupted in the
> process of doing something like flush_tlb_page().
What's the problem with being interrupted?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
2008-11-18 15:44 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2008-11-18 15:51 ` Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 16:03 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2008-11-18 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux-kernel Kernel
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:20, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I'm looking at adding some code into powerpc for doing tlb invalidate
>> broadcasts via IPI and am looking at the x86 code as a model. I was
>> wondering how the x86 code ensures we aren't interrupted in the
>> process of doing something like flush_tlb_page().
>
> What's the problem with being interrupted?
I'm in the middle of doing an invalidate, I get interrupted, in
processing the interrupt I cause another tlb invalidate while the
first one is still in progress and hasn't finished.
For example I'm seeing in my code hacking:
Freeing unused kernel memory: 208k init
BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 61s! [init:1]
Modules linked in:
NIP: c00649c4 LR: c00649a8 CTR: 00000000
REGS: ef82b750 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.28-rc5-00019-ge14c8bf-
dirty)
MSR: 00029000 <EE,ME> CR: 44000428 XER: 00000000
TASK = ef830000[1] 'init' THREAD: ef82a000 CPU: 1
GPR00: 00000001 ef82b800 ef830000 c1002320 00029000 ef82b8f8 00000001
00000000
GPR08: 00000002 00000001 00000000 00029000 84000422
NIP [c00649c4] generic_exec_single+0x84/0xb0
LR [c00649a8] generic_exec_single+0x68/0xb0
Call Trace:
[ef82b800] [c02f4084] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x324/0x3c0 (unreliable)
[ef82b830] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
[ef82b870] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
[ef82b8f0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
[ef82b920] [c03a599c] xdr_partial_copy_from_skb+0x20c/0x2f0
[ef82b970] [c03a5ae8] csum_partial_copy_to_xdr+0x68/0x170
[ef82b990] [c03a8d60] xs_udp_data_ready+0x100/0x250
[ef82b9d0] [c02e8308] sock_queue_rcv_skb+0xf8/0x120
[ef82b9f0] [c033766c] __udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x1c/0x110
[ef82ba00] [c033897c] udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x28c/0x2e0
[ef82ba20] [c0338bf0] __udp4_lib_rcv+0x220/0x890
[ef82ba80] [c03136b0] ip_local_deliver+0xa0/0x240
[ef82baa0] [c03133ec] ip_rcv+0x3bc/0x5e0
[ef82bae0] [c02f3754] netif_receive_skb+0x284/0x310
[ef82bb10] [c0219c98] gfar_clean_rx_ring+0xd8/0x430
[ef82bb50] [c021a080] gfar_poll+0x90/0x170
[ef82bb70] [c02f1374] net_rx_action+0x104/0x200
[ef82bbc0] [c004166c] __do_softirq+0xbc/0x180
[ef82bc00] [c0004dc4] do_softirq+0x64/0x70
[ef82bc10] [c00410f4] irq_exit+0x54/0x70
[ef82bc20] [c0004f1c] do_IRQ+0x8c/0x140
[ef82bc40] [c00109cc] ret_from_except+0x0/0x18
[ef82bd00] [c0510e78] per_cpu____irq_regs+0x0/0x4
[ef82bd30] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
[ef82bd70] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
[ef82bdf0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
[ef82be20] [c008c60c] handle_mm_fault+0x70c/0xa80
[ef82be80] [c0013df4] do_page_fault+0x274/0x510
[ef82bf40] [c00107b4] handle_page_fault+0xc/0x80
Instruction dump:
913f0004 7c641b78 7f43d378 93e90000 4836226d 7c0004ac 7f9cc800 419e0030
73c00001 40820008 48000010 a01f0010 <70090001> 4082fff8 80010034
bb010010
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
2008-11-18 15:51 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2008-11-18 16:03 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 16:06 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2008-11-18 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linux-kernel Kernel
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:51, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:20, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> I'm looking at adding some code into powerpc for doing tlb invalidate
> >> broadcasts via IPI and am looking at the x86 code as a model. I was
> >> wondering how the x86 code ensures we aren't interrupted in the
> >> process of doing something like flush_tlb_page().
> >
> > What's the problem with being interrupted?
>
> I'm in the middle of doing an invalidate, I get interrupted, in
> processing the interrupt I cause another tlb invalidate while the
> first one is still in progress and hasn't finished.
>
> For example I'm seeing in my code hacking:
>
> Freeing unused kernel memory: 208k init
> BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 61s! [init:1]
> Modules linked in:
> NIP: c00649c4 LR: c00649a8 CTR: 00000000
> REGS: ef82b750 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.28-rc5-00019-ge14c8bf-
> dirty)
> MSR: 00029000 <EE,ME> CR: 44000428 XER: 00000000
> TASK = ef830000[1] 'init' THREAD: ef82a000 CPU: 1
> GPR00: 00000001 ef82b800 ef830000 c1002320 00029000 ef82b8f8 00000001
> 00000000
> GPR08: 00000002 00000001 00000000 00029000 84000422
> NIP [c00649c4] generic_exec_single+0x84/0xb0
> LR [c00649a8] generic_exec_single+0x68/0xb0
> Call Trace:
> [ef82b800] [c02f4084] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x324/0x3c0 (unreliable)
> [ef82b830] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
> [ef82b870] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
> [ef82b8f0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
> [ef82b920] [c03a599c] xdr_partial_copy_from_skb+0x20c/0x2f0
> [ef82b970] [c03a5ae8] csum_partial_copy_to_xdr+0x68/0x170
> [ef82b990] [c03a8d60] xs_udp_data_ready+0x100/0x250
> [ef82b9d0] [c02e8308] sock_queue_rcv_skb+0xf8/0x120
> [ef82b9f0] [c033766c] __udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x1c/0x110
> [ef82ba00] [c033897c] udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x28c/0x2e0
> [ef82ba20] [c0338bf0] __udp4_lib_rcv+0x220/0x890
> [ef82ba80] [c03136b0] ip_local_deliver+0xa0/0x240
> [ef82baa0] [c03133ec] ip_rcv+0x3bc/0x5e0
> [ef82bae0] [c02f3754] netif_receive_skb+0x284/0x310
> [ef82bb10] [c0219c98] gfar_clean_rx_ring+0xd8/0x430
> [ef82bb50] [c021a080] gfar_poll+0x90/0x170
> [ef82bb70] [c02f1374] net_rx_action+0x104/0x200
> [ef82bbc0] [c004166c] __do_softirq+0xbc/0x180
> [ef82bc00] [c0004dc4] do_softirq+0x64/0x70
> [ef82bc10] [c00410f4] irq_exit+0x54/0x70
> [ef82bc20] [c0004f1c] do_IRQ+0x8c/0x140
> [ef82bc40] [c00109cc] ret_from_except+0x0/0x18
> [ef82bd00] [c0510e78] per_cpu____irq_regs+0x0/0x4
> [ef82bd30] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
> [ef82bd70] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
> [ef82bdf0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
> [ef82be20] [c008c60c] handle_mm_fault+0x70c/0xa80
> [ef82be80] [c0013df4] do_page_fault+0x274/0x510
> [ef82bf40] [c00107b4] handle_page_fault+0xc/0x80
> Instruction dump:
> 913f0004 7c641b78 7f43d378 93e90000 4836226d 7c0004ac 7f9cc800 419e0030
> 73c00001 40820008 48000010 a01f0010 <70090001> 4082fff8 80010034
> bb010010
You can't do the broadcast TLB invalidates in kunmap_atomic.
All that's needed in that case is to just invalidate the local
CPU.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
2008-11-18 16:03 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2008-11-18 16:06 ` Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 16:20 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2008-11-18 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin; +Cc: linux-kernel Kernel
On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:51, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 19 November 2008 02:20, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>> I'm looking at adding some code into powerpc for doing tlb
>>>> invalidate
>>>> broadcasts via IPI and am looking at the x86 code as a model. I
>>>> was
>>>> wondering how the x86 code ensures we aren't interrupted in the
>>>> process of doing something like flush_tlb_page().
>>>
>>> What's the problem with being interrupted?
>>
>> I'm in the middle of doing an invalidate, I get interrupted, in
>> processing the interrupt I cause another tlb invalidate while the
>> first one is still in progress and hasn't finished.
>>
>> For example I'm seeing in my code hacking:
>>
>> Freeing unused kernel memory: 208k init
>> BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 61s! [init:1]
>> Modules linked in:
>> NIP: c00649c4 LR: c00649a8 CTR: 00000000
>> REGS: ef82b750 TRAP: 0901 Not tainted (2.6.28-rc5-00019-ge14c8bf-
>> dirty)
>> MSR: 00029000 <EE,ME> CR: 44000428 XER: 00000000
>> TASK = ef830000[1] 'init' THREAD: ef82a000 CPU: 1
>> GPR00: 00000001 ef82b800 ef830000 c1002320 00029000 ef82b8f8 00000001
>> 00000000
>> GPR08: 00000002 00000001 00000000 00029000 84000422
>> NIP [c00649c4] generic_exec_single+0x84/0xb0
>> LR [c00649a8] generic_exec_single+0x68/0xb0
>> Call Trace:
>> [ef82b800] [c02f4084] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x324/0x3c0 (unreliable)
>> [ef82b830] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
>> [ef82b870] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
>> [ef82b8f0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
>> [ef82b920] [c03a599c] xdr_partial_copy_from_skb+0x20c/0x2f0
>> [ef82b970] [c03a5ae8] csum_partial_copy_to_xdr+0x68/0x170
>> [ef82b990] [c03a8d60] xs_udp_data_ready+0x100/0x250
>> [ef82b9d0] [c02e8308] sock_queue_rcv_skb+0xf8/0x120
>> [ef82b9f0] [c033766c] __udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x1c/0x110
>> [ef82ba00] [c033897c] udp_queue_rcv_skb+0x28c/0x2e0
>> [ef82ba20] [c0338bf0] __udp4_lib_rcv+0x220/0x890
>> [ef82ba80] [c03136b0] ip_local_deliver+0xa0/0x240
>> [ef82baa0] [c03133ec] ip_rcv+0x3bc/0x5e0
>> [ef82bae0] [c02f3754] netif_receive_skb+0x284/0x310
>> [ef82bb10] [c0219c98] gfar_clean_rx_ring+0xd8/0x430
>> [ef82bb50] [c021a080] gfar_poll+0x90/0x170
>> [ef82bb70] [c02f1374] net_rx_action+0x104/0x200
>> [ef82bbc0] [c004166c] __do_softirq+0xbc/0x180
>> [ef82bc00] [c0004dc4] do_softirq+0x64/0x70
>> [ef82bc10] [c00410f4] irq_exit+0x54/0x70
>> [ef82bc20] [c0004f1c] do_IRQ+0x8c/0x140
>> [ef82bc40] [c00109cc] ret_from_except+0x0/0x18
>> [ef82bd00] [c0510e78] per_cpu____irq_regs+0x0/0x4
>> [ef82bd30] [c0064afc] smp_call_function_single+0xdc/0x110
>> [ef82bd70] [c0064ce8] smp_call_function_mask+0x1b8/0x250
>> [ef82bdf0] [c0015468] flush_tlb_page+0xa8/0xc0
>> [ef82be20] [c008c60c] handle_mm_fault+0x70c/0xa80
>> [ef82be80] [c0013df4] do_page_fault+0x274/0x510
>> [ef82bf40] [c00107b4] handle_page_fault+0xc/0x80
>> Instruction dump:
>> 913f0004 7c641b78 7f43d378 93e90000 4836226d 7c0004ac 7f9cc800
>> 419e0030
>> 73c00001 40820008 48000010 a01f0010 <70090001> 4082fff8 80010034
>> bb010010
>
> You can't do the broadcast TLB invalidates in kunmap_atomic.
> All that's needed in that case is to just invalidate the local
> CPU.
Agreed, I was planning on fixing that. I guess the high level
question is if a broadcast invalidate can occur in soft or hard irq
context.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates
2008-11-18 16:06 ` Kumar Gala
@ 2008-11-18 16:20 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2008-11-18 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kumar Gala; +Cc: linux-kernel Kernel
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 03:06, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > You can't do the broadcast TLB invalidates in kunmap_atomic.
> > All that's needed in that case is to just invalidate the local
> > CPU.
>
> Agreed, I was planning on fixing that. I guess the high level
> question is if a broadcast invalidate can occur in soft or hard irq
> context.
x86 does them for unmapping KVA (except kunmap_atomic), and
unmapping UVA. Unmapping KVA (eg. kunmap, vunmap) is not allowed
in irq context.
So long as you fix kunmap_atomic, you shouldn't have a problems.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-18 16:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-11-18 15:20 questions on how x86 uses IPI for tlb invalidates Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 15:44 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 15:51 ` Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 16:03 ` Nick Piggin
2008-11-18 16:06 ` Kumar Gala
2008-11-18 16:20 ` Nick Piggin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®