lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/3] powerpc/mm: Only read faulting instruction when necessary in do_page_fault()
From
Date


Le 22/05/2018 à 16:38, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 16:02:56 +0200 (CEST)
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>
>> Commit a7a9dcd882a67 ("powerpc: Avoid taking a data miss on every
>> userspace instruction miss") has shown that limiting the read of
>> faulting instruction to likely cases improves performance.
>>
>> This patch goes further into this direction by limiting the read
>> of the faulting instruction to the only cases where it is likely
>> needed.
>>
>> On an MPC885, with the same benchmark app as in the commit referred
>> above, we see a reduction of about 3900 dTLB misses (approx 3%):
>>
>> Before the patch:
>> Performance counter stats for './fault 500' (10 runs):
>>
>> 683033312 cpu-cycles ( +- 0.03% )
>> 134538 dTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.03% )
>> 46099 iTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.02% )
>> 19681 faults ( +- 0.02% )
>>
>> 5.389747878 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.06% )
>>
>> With the patch:
>>
>> Performance counter stats for './fault 500' (10 runs):
>>
>> 682112862 cpu-cycles ( +- 0.03% )
>> 130619 dTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.03% )
>> 46073 iTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.05% )
>> 19681 faults ( +- 0.01% )
>>
>> 5.381342641 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.07% )
>>
>> The proper work of the huge stack expansion was tested with the
>> following app:
>>
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> char buf[1024 * 1025];
>>
>> sprintf(buf, "Hello world !\n");
>> printf(buf);
>>
>> exit(0);
>> }
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
>> ---
>> v7: Following comment from Nicholas on v6 on possibility of the page getting removed from the pagetables
>> between the fault and the read, I have reworked the patch in order to do the get_user() in
>> __do_page_fault() directly in order to reduce complexity compared to version v5
>
> This is looking better, thanks.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> index fcbb34431da2..dc64b8e06477 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -450,9 +450,6 @@ static int __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,
>> * can result in fault, which will cause a deadlock when called with
>> * mmap_sem held
>> */
>> - if (is_write && is_user)
>> - get_user(inst, (unsigned int __user *)regs->nip);
>> -
>> if (is_user)
>> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_USER;
>> if (is_write)
>> @@ -498,6 +495,26 @@ static int __do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,
>> if (unlikely(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_GROWSDOWN)))
>> return bad_area(regs, address);
>>
>> + if (unlikely(is_write && is_user && address + 0x100000 < vma->vm_end &&
>> + !inst)) {
>> + unsigned int __user *nip = (unsigned int __user *)regs->nip;
>> +
>> + if (likely(access_ok(VERIFY_READ, nip, sizeof(inst)))) {
>> + int res;
>> +
>> + pagefault_disable();
>> + res = __get_user_inatomic(inst, nip);
>> + pagefault_enable();
>> + if (unlikely(res)) {
>> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> + res = __get_user(inst, nip);
>> + if (!res && inst)
>> + goto retry;
>
> You're handling error here but the previous code did not?

The previous code did in store_updates_sp()

When I moved get_user() out of that function in preceeding patch, I did
consider that if get_user() fails, inst will remain 0, which means that
store_updates_sp() will return false if ever called.

Now, as the semaphore has been released, we really need to do something,
because if we goto retry inconditionally, we may end up in an infinite
loop, and we can't let it continue either as the semaphore is not held
anymore.

>
>> + return bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, address);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + }
>
> Would it be nicer to move all this up into bad_stack_expansion().
> It would need a way to handle the retry and insn, but I think it
> would still look better.

That's what I did in v5 indeed, but it looked too complex to me at the
end. Can you have a look at it
(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/799053/) and tell me if you feel it
better than v7, or if you have any suggestion to improve based on v5
and/or v7 ?

Thanks
Christophe

>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-22 16:51    [W:0.126 / U:0.684 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site