Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 11:25:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] mm: Get rid of vmalloc_sync_(un)mappings()
Message-ID: <20200509092516.GC2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200508144043.13893-1-joro@8bytes.org>
 <20200508192000.GB2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20200508213407.GT8135@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200508213407.GT8135@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 11:34:07PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> thanks for reviewing this!
> 
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 09:20:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The only concern I have is the pgd_lock lock hold times.
> > 
> > By not doing on-demand faults anymore, and consistently calling
> > sync_global_*(), we iterate that pgd_list thing much more often than
> > before if I'm not mistaken.
> 
> Should not be a problem, from what I have seen this function is not
> called often on x86-64.  The vmalloc area needs to be synchronized at
> the top-level there, which is by now P4D (with 4-level paging). And the
> vmalloc area takes 64 entries, when all of them are populated the
> function will not be called again.

Right; it's just that the moment you do trigger it, it'll iterate that
pgd_list and that is potentially huge. Then again, that's not a new
problem.

I suppose we can deal with it if/when it becomes an actual problem.

I had a quick look and I think it might be possible to make it an RCU
managed list. We'd have to remove the pgd_list entry in
put_task_struct_rcu_user(). Then we can play games in sync_global_*()
and use RCU iteration. New tasks (which can be missed in the RCU
iteration) will already have a full clone of the PGD anyway.

But like said, something for later I suppose.