lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v2 PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force flush
From
Date


On 5/14/19 7:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 5/13/19 9:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:26:54AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>> index 99740e1..469492d 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>> @@ -245,14 +245,39 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>>> {
>>>> /*
>>>> * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
>>>> - * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
>>>> - * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
>>>> - * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
>>>> - * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>>> + * under non-exclusive lock (e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
>>>> + * flush by batching, one thread may end up seeing inconsistent PTEs
>>>> + * and result in having stale TLB entries. So flush TLB forcefully
>>>> + * if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * However, some syscalls, e.g. munmap(), may free page tables, this
>>>> + * needs force flush everything in the given range. Otherwise this
>>>> + * may result in having stale TLB entries for some architectures,
>>>> + * e.g. aarch64, that could specify flush what level TLB.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
>>>> - __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
>>>> - __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
>>>> + if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->fullmm) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Since we can't tell what we actually should have
>>>> + * flushed, flush everything in the given range.
>>>> + */
>>>> + tlb->freed_tables = 1;
>>>> + tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
>>>> + tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
>>>> + tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
>>>> + tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Some architectures, e.g. ARM, that have range invalidation
>>>> + * and care about VM_EXEC for I-Cache invalidation, need force
>>>> + * vma_exec set.
>>>> + */
>>>> + tlb->vma_exec = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Force vma_huge clear to guarantee safer flush */
>>>> + tlb->vma_huge = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + tlb->start = start;
>>>> + tlb->end = end;
>>>> }
>>> Whilst I think this is correct, it would be interesting to see whether
>>> or not it's actually faster than just nuking the whole mm, as I mentioned
>>> before.
>>>
>>> At least in terms of getting a short-term fix, I'd prefer the diff below
>>> if it's not measurably worse.
>> I did a quick test with ebizzy (96 threads with 5 iterations) on my x86 VM,
>> it shows slightly slowdown on records/s but much more sys time spent with
>> fullmm flush, the below is the data.
>>
>>                                     nofullmm                 fullmm
>> ops (records/s)              225606                  225119
>> sys (s)                            0.69                        1.14
>>
>> It looks the slight reduction of records/s is caused by the increase of sys
>> time.
> That's not what I expected, and I'm unable to explain why moving to fullmm
> would /increase/ the system time. I would've thought the time spent doing
> the invalidation would decrease, with the downside that the TLB is cold
> when returning back to userspace.
>
> FWIW, I ran 10 iterations of ebizzy on my arm64 box using a vanilla 5.1
> kernel and the numbers are all over the place (see below). I think
> deducing anything meaningful from this benchmark will be a challenge.

Yes, it looks so. What else benchmark do you suggest?

>
> Will
>
> --->8
>
> 306090 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1227.55 s
> sys 0.54 s
> 323547 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1262.95 s
> sys 0.82 s
> 409148 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1266.54 s
> sys 0.94 s
> 341507 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1263.49 s
> sys 0.66 s
> 375910 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1259.87 s
> sys 0.82 s
> 376152 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1265.76 s
> sys 0.96 s
> 358862 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1251.13 s
> sys 0.72 s
> 358164 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1243.48 s
> sys 0.85 s
> 332148 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1260.93 s
> sys 0.70 s
> 367021 records/s
> real 10.00 s
> user 1264.06 s
> sys 1.43 s

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-14 19:26    [W:0.054 / U:19.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site