On 2/6/25 18:34, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 06/02/2025 06:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 2/5/25 20:39, Ryan Roberts wrote:
commit c910f2b65518 ("arm64/mm: Update tlb invalidation routines for FEAT_LPA2") changed the "invalidation level unknown" hint from 0 to TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN (INT_MAX). But the fallback "unknown level" path in flush_hugetlb_tlb_range() was not updated. So as it stands, when trying to invalidate CONT_PMD_SIZE or CONT_PTE_SIZE hugetlb mappings, we will spuriously try to invalidate at level 0 on LPA2-enabled systems.
Fix this so that the fallback passes TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN, and while we are at it, explicitly use the correct stride and level for CONT_PMD_SIZE and CONT_PTE_SIZE, which should provide a minor optimization.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: c910f2b65518 ("arm64/mm: Update tlb invalidation routines for FEAT_LPA2") Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts ryan.roberts@arm.com
arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 20 ++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h index 03db9cb21ace..8ab9542d2d22 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h @@ -76,12 +76,20 @@ static inline void flush_hugetlb_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, { unsigned long stride = huge_page_size(hstate_vma(vma));
- if (stride == PMD_SIZE)
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, stride, false, 2);- else if (stride == PUD_SIZE)
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, stride, false, 1);- else
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, false, 0);
- switch (stride) {
- case PUD_SIZE:
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PUD_SIZE, false, 1);break;Just wondering - should not !__PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED and pud_sect_supported() checks also be added here for this PUD_SIZE case ?
Yeah I guess so. TBH, it's never been entirely clear to me what the benefit is? Is it just to remove (a tiny amount of) dead code when we know we don't support blocks at the level? Or is there something more fundamental going on that I've missed?
There is a generic fallback for PUD_SIZE in include/asm-generic/pgtable-nopud.h when it is not defined on arm64 platform and pud_sect_supported() might also get optimized by the compiler.
static inline bool pud_sect_supported(void) { return PAGE_SIZE == SZ_4K; }
IIUC this just saves dead code from being compiled as you mentioned.
We seem to be quite inconsistent with the use of pud_sect_supported() in hugetlbpage.c.
PUD_SIZE switch cases in hugetlb_mask_last_page() and arch_make_huge_pte() ? Those should be fixed.
Anyway, I'll add this in, I guess it's preferable to follow the established pattern.
Agreed.
Thanks, Ryan
- case CONT_PMD_SIZE:
- case PMD_SIZE:
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PMD_SIZE, false, 2);break;- case CONT_PTE_SIZE:
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, false, 3);break;- default:
__flush_tlb_range(vma, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, false, TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN);- }
} #endif /* __ASM_HUGETLB_H */