Re: [PATCH] x86/alternative: don't call text_poke() in lazy TLB mode

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 12:26:06PM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:

> > > @@ -807,6 +807,15 @@ static inline temp_mm_state_t 
> > > use_temporary_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >           temp_mm_state_t temp_state;
> > >           lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > +  * Make sure not to be in TLB lazy mode, as otherwise we'll end up
> > > +  * with a stale address space WITHOUT being in lazy mode after
> > > +  * restoring the previous mm.
> > > +  */
> > > + if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy))
> > > +         leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
> > > +
> > >           temp_state.mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm);
> > >           switch_mm_irqs_off(NULL, mm, current);
> > 
> > Would it make sense to write it like:
> > 
> >     this_state.mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.is_lazy) ?
> >                     &init_mm : this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm);
> > 
> > Possibly with that wrapped in a conveniently named helper function.
> 
> Fine with me, but I don't think it matters that much.
> 
> For each batch of text_poke() it will be hit only once, and I'm not sure
> it is really a good idea to use the knowledge that leave_mm() is just a
> switch to init_mm here.

Yeah, I'm not sure either. But it's something I came up with when
looking at all this.

Andy, what's your preference?