Re: preempt bug in set_pmd_pfn?
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Thu Mar 06 2008 - 13:25:34 EST
Ingo Molnar wrote:
actually, i think the correct approach is to remove the TLB flushing and
perhaps to check that the old pte is not present. Do we ever _change_
mappings via __set_fixmap()? I think we only ever install them.
Yes, I think that's the case. clear_fixmap() exists for clearing out an
existing mapping, but its only used to clear out the WP test mapping and
in early_iounmap (if called late). I couldn't see any instances of
replacing a mapping.
but if we ever change them somewhere then the correct approach is to do
a flush_tlb_all(). It's not just about preemption but about the fact
that we modified the kernel address space and we must propagate that to
all CPUs.
Yes, I was wondering about that. If __set_fixmap is only used at boot
time, then a global flush isn't necessary, but if its deemed a
general-purpose API in a normal running kernel, it needs to deal with
cross-cpu flushes.
64-bit set_fixmap is __init only, and I'd be OK with that. The only
non-__init use in the 32-bit kernel is the compat vdso mapping, and that
could easily be done by other means (though it would effectively become
an opencoded set_fixmap, so perhaps that's not a good idea...).
the vmalloc() backtrace you sent - how did set_pte_pfn() get into that
codepath - vmalloc shouldnt be using __set_fixmap().
No, that's set_pte_at(), which is the real issue in both cases.
__set_fixmap calls both set_pte_at and flush_tlb_one, which is why it
gets two backtrackes.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/