Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Message-ID: <386c175e-bd10-2d5d-6051-4065f6f9b84a@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Sep 2023 14:57:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/14] mm/slub: allocate slabs from virtual memory
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Matteo Rizzo <matteorizzo@google.com>, cl@linux.com,
        penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        roman.gushchin@linux.dev, 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, corbet@lwn.net, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     jannh@google.com, evn@google.com, poprdi@google.com,
        jordyzomer@google.com
References: <20230915105933.495735-1-matteorizzo@google.com>
 <20230915105933.495735-12-matteorizzo@google.com>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230915105933.495735-12-matteorizzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/15/23 03:59, Matteo Rizzo wrote:
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&slub_kworker_lock, irq_flags);
> +	list_splice_init(&slub_tlbflush_queue, &local_queue);
> +	list_for_each_entry(slab, &local_queue, flush_list_elem) {
> +		unsigned long start = (unsigned long)slab_to_virt(slab);
> +		unsigned long end = start + PAGE_SIZE *
> +			(1UL << oo_order(slab->oo));
> +
> +		if (start < addr_start)
> +			addr_start = start;
> +		if (end > addr_end)
> +			addr_end = end;
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&slub_kworker_lock, irq_flags);
> +
> +	if (addr_start < addr_end)
> +		flush_tlb_kernel_range(addr_start, addr_end);

I assume that the TLB flushes in the queue are going to be pretty sparse
on average.

At least on x86, flush_tlb_kernel_range() falls back pretty quickly from
individual address invalidation to just doing a full flush.  It might
not even be worth tracking the address ranges, and just do a full flush
every time.

I'd be really curious to see how often actual ranged flushes are
triggered from this code.  I expect it would be very near zero.