-
Andy Lutomirski authored
It was historically possible to have two concurrent TLB flushes targetting the same CPU: one initiated locally and one initiated remotely. This can now cause an OOPS in leave_mm() at arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:47: if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK) BUG(); with this call trace: flush_tlb_func_local arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:239 [inline] flush_tlb_mm_range+0x26d/0x370 arch/x86/mm/tlb.c:317 Without reentrancy, this OOPS is impossible: leave_mm() is only called if we're not in TLBSTATE_OK, but then we're unexpectedly in TLBSTATE_OK in leave_mm(). This can be caused by flush_tlb_func_remote() happening between the two checks and calling leave_mm(), resulting in two consecutive leave_mm() calls on the same CPU with no intervening switch_mm() calls. We never saw this OOPS before because the old leave_mm() implementation didn't put us back in TLBSTATE_OK, so the assertion didn't fire. Nadav noticed the reentrancy issue in a different context, but neither of us realized that it caused a problem yet. Reported-by:
Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) <alexander.levin@verizon.com> Signed-off-by:
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Reviewed-by:
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> Reviewed-by:
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Fixes: 3d28ebce ("x86/mm: Rework lazy TLB to track the actual loaded mm") Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/855acf733268d521c9f2e191faee2dcc23a29729.1498751203.git.luto@kernel.orgSigned-off-by:
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
bc0d5a89