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>
 <CALCETrXjqa6pWpAgh7v-sttOwY0V2RUqQ_Vs-JQr7nFDYvrBpQ@mail.gmail.com> <F9CA7AFA-D54B-4458-8248-CA52584C13CD@vmware.com>
In-Reply-To: <F9CA7AFA-D54B-4458-8248-CA52584C13CD@vmware.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:30:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CALCETrWFprNc2V1nrg_y0RDhV_PkSnx6v_p=mUHvpv9E0C5zAw@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"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:57 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 27, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 a=
s
> >> 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 arguabl=
y
> >> 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/tl=
bflush.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=E2=80=9D?
>
> I think the current semantic is more of =E2=80=9Cincludes remote cpus=E2=
=80=9D. How about
> calling it =E2=80=9Clocal_only=E2=80=9D, and negating its value?

Sure.