Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@bytedance.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc:     Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>, yangyicong@hisilicon.com,
        corbet@lwn.net, peterz@infradead.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, darren@os.amperecomputing.com,
        huzhanyuan@oppo.com, lipeifeng@oppo.com, zhangshiming@oppo.com,
        guojian@oppo.com, realmz6@gmail.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, xhao@linux.alibaba.com,
        prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown
 during page reclamation
References: <20220921084302.43631-1-yangyicong@huawei.com>
        <20220921084302.43631-3-yangyicong@huawei.com>
        <168eac93-a6ee-0b2e-12bb-4222eff24561@arm.com>
        <8e391962-4e3a-5a56-64b4-78e8637e3b8c@huawei.com>
        <CAGsJ_4z=dZbrAUD9jczT08S3qi_ep-h+EK35UfayVk1S+Cnp2A@mail.gmail.com>
        <ecd161db-b290-7997-a81e-a0a00bd1c599@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 15:19:02 +0100
In-Reply-To: <ecd161db-b290-7997-a81e-a0a00bd1c599@arm.com> (Anshuman
        Khandual's message of "Thu, 27 Oct 2022 16:11:59 +0530")
Message-ID: <87o7tx5oyx.fsf@stealth>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk


[ Apologies for chiming in late in the conversation ]

Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> writes:

> On 9/28/22 05:53, Barry Song wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:15 PM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022/9/27 14:16, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> On 9/21/22 14:13, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    /* for small systems with small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */
>>>>> +    if (num_online_cpus() <= 4)
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to have some more inputs from others, whether 4 (which should
>>>> to be codified into a macro e.g ARM64_NR_CPU_DEFERRED_TLB, or something similar)
>>>> is optimal for an wide range of arm64 platforms.
>>>>
>> 
>> I have tested it on a 4-cpus and 8-cpus machine. but i have no machine
>> with 5,6,7
>> cores.
>> I saw improvement on 8-cpus machines and I found 4-cpus machines don't need
>> this patch.
>> 
>> so it seems safe to have
>> if (num_online_cpus()  < 8)
>> 
>>>
>>> Do you prefer this macro to be static or make it configurable through kconfig then
>>> different platforms can make choice based on their own situations? It maybe hard to
>>> test on all the arm64 platforms.
>> 
>> Maybe we can have this default enabled on machines with 8 and more cpus and
>> provide a tlbflush_batched = on or off to allow users enable or
>> disable it according
>> to their hardware and products. Similar example: rodata=on or off.
>
> No, sounds bit excessive. Kernel command line options should not be added
> for every possible run time switch options.
>
>> 
>> Hi Anshuman, Will,  Catalin, Andrew,
>> what do you think about this approach?
>> 
>> BTW, haoxin mentioned another important user scenarios for tlb bach on arm64:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/393d6318-aa38-01ed-6ad8-f9eac89bf0fc@linux.alibaba.com/
>> 
>> I do believe we need it based on the expensive cost of tlb shootdown in arm64
>> even by hardware broadcast.
>
> Alright, for now could we enable ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH selectively
> with CONFIG_EXPERT and for num_online_cpus()  > 8 ?

When running the test program in the commit in a VM, I saw benefits from
the patches at all sizes from 2, 4, 8, 32 vcpus. On the test machine,
ptep_clear_flush() went from ~1% in the unpatched version to not showing
up.

Yicong mentioned that he didn't see any benefit for <= 4 CPUs but is
there any overhead? I am wondering what are the downsides of enabling
the config by default.

Thanks,
Punit