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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190823225248.15597-1-namit@vmware.com> <20190823225248.15597-4-namit@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190823225248.15597-4-namit@vmware.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 16:07:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrXjqa6pWpAgh7v-sttOwY0V2RUqQ_Vs-JQr7nFDYvrBpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] x86/mm/tlb: Avoid deferring PTI flushes on shootdown
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:13 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> When a shootdown is initiated, the initiating CPU has cycles to burn as
> it waits for the responding CPUs to receive the IPI and acknowledge it.
> In these cycles it is better to flush the user page-tables using
> INVPCID, instead of deferring the TLB flush.
>
> The best way to figure out whether there are cycles to burn is arguably
> to expose from the SMP layer when an acknowledgment is received.
> However, this would break some abstractions.
>
> Instead, use a simpler solution: the initiating CPU of a TLB shootdown
> would not defer PTI flushes. It is not always a win, relatively to
> deferring user page-table flushes, but it prevents performance
> regression.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/mm/tlb.c               | 10 +++++++++-
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index da56aa3ccd07..066b3804f876 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -573,6 +573,7 @@ struct flush_tlb_info {
>         unsigned int            initiating_cpu;
>         u8                      stride_shift;
>         u8                      freed_tables;
> +       u8                      shootdown;

I find the name "shootdown" to be confusing.  How about "more_than_one_cpu"?