Received: by 2002:a25:4158:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id o85csp4535247yba; Sun, 19 May 2019 22:17:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwK3U7j41ESgyoveD7nvM8nTpPbvQ/RrZoyrI0IkS6YgM57KOZvDDWG/6RL2Bt30uJu3s3n X-Received: by 2002:a63:5964:: with SMTP id j36mr73005071pgm.384.1558329428585; Sun, 19 May 2019 22:17:08 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1558329428; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MhKflK28QhWlcRL3OCi2rR2q/iznKf4DSLnFpcViUUXiUx6smUXF5fs1aa1h/2BVsi PCHMxcVuNxTcvtbIRInQnX1OGOQlW5g8DR5PHulRXq+2EyzP7OOwvLNjl7yOz6P75k5g 3N0jC3SekFpvZWyeYW99PSA6p9zHojK2KBa069+Jj7gt/66N5sZzqTaez/xxCkaynWPD h7JA7K7OBx0+1X2habJqB7F7WP60i48ctJ43Mw4zYk3ZyGHr0tstdyiHM/GQEXp6gTDr 3+oxYbYZJXE8pkrb9xbqAFcdtk/EscwPAZjlJiWTEiMf0j0hPTKOCL5WOiu1kraPy6Bm izBw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-language :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=JWvs5+SZt/bFewaGcWX+wHkUwjOAhQ8hGzdpkMcVXn0=; b=0goyp4ypXU2Ta28ivaasoTh5HZNTwzV2/5MEBXrRg36Qwmer/TlnTTVyf1LJMTZTSX R7ijD6FNkikEgdtohZEk76+P73dVBDj/oACyDY7esVku3EoslRgDAoBURaK/fYkRwiRV TJOgNPNsEVZ2VyOZXLEBwTHm8y1ACQorGa7bEdLncR0DAwT1z8XWK0KgNbqVFUD2aUUE Cv2luWdBvYRaHIeKHeLhjOAqujRw8dJiiNhCtm+dPfK7GYP/7dDLJemvuMc+xdmtBHgM Thu5UIeYhQyYx5G0dEvCPBOj5V/r/KPIf54MP/Yqsvn1przNPnizcM5stq918metRIiw sebQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k184si15857649pge.82.2019.05.19.22.16.54; Sun, 19 May 2019 22:17:08 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=alibaba.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730076AbfETC7u (ORCPT + 99 others); Sun, 19 May 2019 22:59:50 -0400 Received: from out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.45]:56883 "EHLO out30-45.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725959AbfETC7u (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 May 2019 22:59:50 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R181e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e07486;MF=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=9;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TSAtmJS_1558321155; Received: from US-143344MP.local(mailfrom:yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TSAtmJS_1558321155) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Mon, 20 May 2019 10:59:45 +0800 Subject: Re: [v2 PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force flush To: Jan Stancek , Will Deacon Cc: 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> <1158926942.23199905.1558020575293.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> From: Yang Shi Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:59:07 +0800 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: <1158926942.23199905.1558020575293.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.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 List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/16/19 11:29 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> 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. >> > I tried ebizzy with various parameters (malloc vs mmap, ran it for hour), > but performance was very similar for both patches. > > So, I was looking for workload that would demonstrate the largest difference. > Inspired by python xml-rpc, which can handle each request in new thread, > I tried following [1]: > > 16 threads, each looping 100k times over: > mmap(16M) > touch 1 page > madvise(DONTNEED) > munmap(16M) > > This yields quite significant difference for 2 patches when running on > my 46 CPU arm host. I checked it twice - applied patch, recompiled, rebooted, > but numbers stayed +- couple seconds the same. Thanks for the testing. I'm a little bit surprised by the significant difference. I did the same test on my x86 VM (24 cores), they yield almost same number. Given the significant improvement on arm64 with fullmm version, I'm going to respin the patch. > > Does it somewhat match your expectation? > > v2 patch > --------- > real 2m33.460s > user 0m3.359s > sys 15m32.307s > > real 2m33.895s > user 0m2.749s > sys 16m34.500s > > real 2m35.666s > user 0m3.528s > sys 15m23.377s > > real 2m32.898s > user 0m2.789s > sys 16m18.801s > > real 2m33.087s > user 0m3.565s > sys 16m23.815s > > > fullmm version > --------------- > real 0m46.811s > user 0m1.596s > sys 1m47.500s > > real 0m47.322s > user 0m1.803s > sys 1m48.449s > > real 0m46.668s > user 0m1.508s > sys 1m47.352s > > real 0m46.742s > user 0m2.007s > sys 1m47.217s > > real 0m46.948s > user 0m1.785s > sys 1m47.906s > > [1] https://github.com/jstancek/reproducers/blob/master/kernel/page_fault_stall/mmap8.c