Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm for 6.2

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 9:17 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Here's *one* suggested solution:

Note again: this is not a "you need to do it this way" suggestion.
This is just a "at least this way doesn't have the issues I object
to". There are bound to be other ways to do it.

But if you feel like all threads have to share the same LAM state, it
does seem a lot simpler if you just say "you need to set that state
before you start any threads". No?

> And yes, I would actually suggest that _any_ thread creation locks it,
> so that you never *EVER* have any issues with "oh, now I need to
> synchronize with other threads". A process can set its LAM state at
> startup, not in the middle of running!

Note that this "no serialization needed" is just about the SW side.

The *hardware* side may still need the IPI just to make sure that it
forces a TLB flush - even if we are single-threaded, that single
thread may have run on other CPU's before.

But I think at that point it's just a regular TLB flush, and doesn't
need that LAM-specific IPI.

But maybe there's some bigger HW serialization that is needed for the
LAM bit, I have not looked at that enough to know.

              Linus