Re: [PATCH] mm: fix up a spurious page fault whenever it happens

[Rik van Riel]

On 05/23/2013 04:07 AM, Stanislav Meduna wrote:
> On 22.05.2013 20:43, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > > Some CPUs have had errata when it comes to flushing large pages that
> > > have been split into small pages by hardware, e.g. due to MTRR
> > > conflicts.  In that case, fragments of the large page may have been left
> > > in the TLB.
>
> Can I somehow find if this is the case? The memory mapping
> for the failing process has two regions slightly larger than
> 4 MB - code and heap.
>
> The process also does not access any funny memory regions
> from userspace - it is basically networking (both TCP/IP
> and raw sockets) and crunching of the data received.
> No mmapped devices or something like that.
>
> > static inline void __native_flush_tlb_single(unsigned long addr)
> > {
> >          __flush_tlb();
> > }
> >
> > This on top of the other two patches.
>
> It did not crash overnight, but it also does not show any
> minor fault counted for the threads, so I'm afraid the situation
> just did not happen - there should be at least one visible in
> the ps -o min_flt output, right?

If all the page faults are done by he main thread,
and the TLB gets properly flushed now, the other
threads might not see minor faults.

> I will give it some more testing time.

That is a good idea.

Now to figure out how we properly fix this
issue in the kernel...

We can add a bit in the architecture bits that
we use to check against other CPU and system
errata, and conditionally flush the whole TLB
from __native_flush_tlb_single().

The question is, how do we identify what CPUs
need the extra flushing?

And in what circumstances do they require it?
--
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/