xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings

To: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: Interaction between Xen and XFS: stray RW mappings
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:28:10 +1000
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Morten Bøgeskov <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:X-YMail-OSG:From:To:Subject:Date:User-Agent:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Disposition:Message-Id; b=ZfWhGiOaG5IPC/v2tDGjJNIBGiVmHQ703r7cQbGr6Oi0xD46pDJyfnukBOf3v81OnZtinuF+vjeql7z2TWDYfXsPAYF71OgTZZ93F8SnHr4kuiuERpl4YpC+qHWBP3rD47lPZ6yPBDem1nomGAPRltTQrPuz854Kofmu+l1A28c= ;
In-reply-to: <20071015110735.GA11748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <470FA7C3.90404@xxxxxxxx> <200710160056.47458.nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071015110735.GA11748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: KMail/1.9.5
On Monday 15 October 2007 21:07, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 12:56:46AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Is this true even if you don't write through those old mappings?
>
> I think it happened for reads too.  It is a little counter intuitive
> because in theory the CPU doesn't need to write back non dirty lines,
> but in the one case which took so long to debug exactly this happened
> somehow.
>
> At it is undefined for reads and writes in the architecture so
> better be safe than sorry.

Yes, typo. I meant reads or writes.


> And x86 CPUs are out of order and do speculative executation
> and that can lead to arbitary memory accesses even if the code
> never touches an particular address.
>
> Newer Intel CPUs have something called self-snoop which was supposed
> to handle this; but in some situations it doesn't seem to catch it
> either.

Fair enough, so we have to have this lazy tlb flush hook for
Xen/PAT/etc. I don't think it should be much problem to
implement.


> > Is DRM or AGP then not also broken with lazy highmem flushing, or
> > how do they solve that?
>
> AGP doesn't allocate highmem pages.  Not sure about the DRM code.

Hmm, OK. It looks like DRM vmallocs memory (which gives highmem).


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>