[PATCH 3/6] powerpc/mm: Ensure cpumask update is ordered
Nicholas Piggin
npiggin at gmail.com
Mon Jul 24 21:20:07 AEST 2017
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:28:00 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> There is no guarantee that the various isync's involved with
> the context switch will order the update of the CPU mask with
> the first TLB entry for the new context being loaded by the HW.
>
> Be safe here and add a memory barrier to order any subsequent
> load/store which may bring entries into the TLB.
>
> The corresponding barrier on the other side already exists as
> pte updates use pte_xchg() which uses __cmpxchg_u64 which has
> a sync after the atomic operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh at kernel.crashing.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index ed9a36ee3107..ff1aeb2cd19f 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ static inline void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev,
> /* Mark this context has been used on the new CPU */
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next))) {
> cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), mm_cpumask(next));
> + smp_mb();
> new_on_cpu = true;
> }
>
I think this is the right thing to do, but it should be commented.
Is hwsync the right barrier? (i.e., it will order the page table walk)
Thanks,
Nick
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list