Re: [PATCH v5 18/25] arm64/mm: Split __flush_tlb_range() to elide trailing DSB

[Ryan Roberts]

On 12/02/2024 13:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.02.24 14:05, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 12:44, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 02.02.24 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> Split __flush_tlb_range() into __flush_tlb_range_nosync() +
>>>> __flush_tlb_range(), in the same way as the existing flush_tlb_page()
>>>> arrangement. This allows calling __flush_tlb_range_nosync() to elide the
>>>> trailing DSB. Forthcoming "contpte" code will take advantage of this
>>>> when clearing the young bit from a contiguous range of ptes.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>    arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 13 +++++++++++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> index 79e932a1bdf8..50a765917327 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>>>> @@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ do {                                    \
>>>>    #define __flush_s2_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, tlb_level) \
>>>>        __flush_tlb_range_op(op, start, pages, stride, 0, tlb_level, false,
>>>> kvm_lpa2_is_enabled());
>>>>    -static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> +static inline void __flush_tlb_range_nosync(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>                         unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>>>>                         unsigned long stride, bool last_level,
>>>>                         int tlb_level)
>>>> @@ -456,10 +456,19 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct
>>>> vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>            __flush_tlb_range_op(vae1is, start, pages, stride, asid,
>>>>                         tlb_level, true, lpa2_is_enabled());
>>>>    -    dsb(ish);
>>>>        mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(vma->vm_mm, start, end);
>>>>    }
>>>>    +static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> +                     unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>>>> +                     unsigned long stride, bool last_level,
>>>> +                     int tlb_level)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    __flush_tlb_range_nosync(vma, start, end, stride,
>>>> +                 last_level, tlb_level);
>>>> +    dsb(ish);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static inline void flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>                       unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>>>>    {
>>>
>>> You're now calling dsb() after mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs().
>>>
>>>
>>> In flush_tlb_mm(), we have the order
>>>
>>>      dsb(ish);
>>>      mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs()
>>>
>>> In flush_tlb_page(), we have the effective order:
>>>
>>>      mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs()
>>>      dsb(ish);
>>>
>>> In flush_tlb_range(), we used to have the order:
>>>
>>>      dsb(ish);
>>>      mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs();
>>>
>>>
>>> So I *suspect* having that DSB before
>>> mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs() is fine. Hopefully, nothing in
>>> there relies on that placement.
>>
>> Will spotted this against v3. My argument was that I was following the existing
>> pattern in flush_tlb_page(). Apparently that is not correct and needs changing,
>> but the conclusion was to leave my change as is for now, since it is consistent
>> and change them at a later date together.
> 
> Good, I think you should add a few words to the patch description ("ordering
> might be incorrect, but is in-line with __flush_tlb_page()"; will be resolved
> separately).
> 

ACK, will do. Thanks!