Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106413-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240311164638.2015063-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <2cb8f02d-f21e-45d2-afe2-d1c6225240f3@zytor.com> <ZfNTSjfE_w50Otnz@casper.infradead.org>
 <2qp4uegb4kqkryihqyo6v3fzoc2nysuhltc535kxnh6ozpo5ni@isilzw7nth42>
 <ZfNWojLB7qjjB0Zw@casper.infradead.org> <CA+CK2bAmOj2J10szVijNikexFZ1gmA913vvxnqW4DJKWQikwqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <39F17EC4-7844-4111-BF7D-FFC97B05D9FA@zytor.com> <CA+CK2bDothmwdJ86K1LiKWDKdWdYDjg5WCwdbapL9c3Y_Sf+kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <74c82d8a6b5f490784cc8f16fa7d2c12@AcuMS.aculab.com>
In-Reply-To: <74c82d8a6b5f490784cc8f16fa7d2c12@AcuMS.aculab.com>
From: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:00:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bCksQyhNWh-ZonMQSdcr95dDCfe4W0VNVhG+0i7et1fiw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/14] Dynamic Kernel Stacks
To: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, 
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>, 
	"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, 
	"bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "brauner@kernel.org" <brauner@kernel.org>, 
	"bristot@redhat.com" <bristot@redhat.com>, "bsegall@google.com" <bsegall@google.com>, 
	"dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, 
	"dianders@chromium.org" <dianders@chromium.org>, 
	"dietmar.eggemann@arm.com" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, 
	"eric.devolder@oracle.com" <eric.devolder@oracle.com>, "hca@linux.ibm.com" <hca@linux.ibm.com>, 
	"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>, 
	"jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com" <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>, "jgg@ziepe.ca" <jgg@ziepe.ca>, 
	"jpoimboe@kernel.org" <jpoimboe@kernel.org>, "jroedel@suse.de" <jroedel@suse.de>, 
	"juri.lelli@redhat.com" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, "kinseyho@google.com" <kinseyho@google.com>, 
	"kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, "lstoakes@gmail.com" <lstoakes@gmail.com>, 
	"luto@kernel.org" <luto@kernel.org>, "mgorman@suse.de" <mgorman@suse.de>, "mic@digikod.net" <mic@digikod.net>, 
	"michael.christie@oracle.com" <michael.christie@oracle.com>, "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>, 
	"mjguzik@gmail.com" <mjguzik@gmail.com>, "mst@redhat.com" <mst@redhat.com>, 
	"npiggin@gmail.com" <npiggin@gmail.com>, "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	"pmladek@suse.com" <pmladek@suse.com>, 
	"rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>, 
	"surenb@google.com" <surenb@google.com>, "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>, 
	"urezki@gmail.com" <urezki@gmail.com>, 
	"vincent.guittot@linaro.org" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, "vschneid@redhat.com" <vschneid@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:39=E2=80=AFAM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.=
com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > - exit_to_user_mode(): Unmap the extra three pages and return them to
> > the per-CPU cache. This function is called late in the kernel exit
> > path.
>
> Why bother?
> The number of tasks running in user_mode is limited to the number
> of cpu. So the most you save is a few pages per cpu.
>
> Plausibly a context switch from an interrupt (eg timer tick)
> could suspend a task without saving anything on its kernel stack.
> But how common is that in reality?
> In a well behaved system most user threads will be sleeping on
> some event - so with an active kernel stack.
>
> I can also imagine that something like sys_epoll() actually
> sleeps with not (that much) stack allocated.
> But the calls into all the drivers to check the status
> could easily go into another page.
> You really wouldn't to keep allocating and deallocating
> physical pages (which I'm sure has TLB flushing costs)
> all the time for those processes.
>
> Perhaps a 'garbage collection' activity that reclaims stack
> pages from processes that have been asleep 'for a while' or
> haven't used a lot of stack recently (if hw 'page accessed'
> bit can be used) might make more sense.
>
> Have you done any instrumentation to see which system calls
> are actually using more than (say) 8k of stack?
> And how often the user threads that make those calls do so?

None of our syscalls, AFAIK.

Pasha

>
>         David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1=
 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)