Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force
 flush
To:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc:     jstancek@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, namit@vmware.com,
        minchan@kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1557444414-12090-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190513163804.GB10754@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
 <360170d7-b16f-f130-f930-bfe54be9747a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190514145445.GB2825@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <21905828-d08d-a9a7-5ff9-2383f4fdce0f@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 10:25:43 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190514145445.GB2825@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


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