Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135053-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <f2aad459-e19c-45e2-a7ab-35383e8c3ba5@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:36:20 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Reduce cost of ptep_get_lockless on arm64
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240215121756.2734131-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <0ae22147-e1a1-4bcb-8a4c-f900f3f8c39e@redhat.com>
 <d8b3bcf2-495f-42bd-b114-6e3a010644d8@arm.com>
 <de143212-49ce-4c30-8bfa-4c0ff613f107@redhat.com>
 <374d8500-4625-4bff-a934-77b5f34cf2ec@arm.com>
 <c1218cdb-905b-4896-8e17-109700577cec@redhat.com>
 <a41b0534-b841-42c2-8c06-41337c35347d@arm.com>
 <8bd9e136-8575-4c40-bae2-9b015d823916@redhat.com>
 <86680856-2532-495b-951a-ea7b2b93872f@arm.com>
 <35236bbf-3d9a-40e9-84b5-e10e10295c0c@redhat.com>
 <dbc5083b-bf8c-4869-8dc7-5fbf2c88cce8@arm.com>
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ
 dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL
 QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp
 XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK
 Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9
 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt
 WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc
 UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv
 jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb
 B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk
 ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW
 AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q
 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp
 rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf
 wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4
 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l
 pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd
 KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE
 BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs
 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF
 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9
 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz
 Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb
 T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A
 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk
 CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G
 NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75
 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx
 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS
 lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv
 AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa
 N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3
 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB
 boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq
 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f
 XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ
 a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq
 Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6
 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8
 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E
 th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr
 jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt
 WNyWQQ==
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <dbc5083b-bf8c-4869-8dc7-5fbf2c88cce8@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 03.04.24 14:59, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 09:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.03.24 18:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2024 17:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 26.03.24 18:32, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On 26/03/2024 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likely, we just want to read "the real deal" on both sides of the
>>>>>>>>>> pte_same()
>>>>>>>>>> handling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry I'm not sure I understand? You mean read the full pte including
>>>>>>>>> access/dirty? That's the same as dropping the patch, right? Of course if
>>>>>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>>> that, we still have to keep pte_get_lockless() around for this case. In an
>>>>>>>>> ideal
>>>>>>>>> world we would convert everything over to ptep_get_lockless_norecency() and
>>>>>>>>> delete ptep_get_lockless() to remove the ugliness from arm64.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, agreed. Patch #3 does not look too crazy and it wouldn't really affect
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do wonder if pte_same_norecency() should be defined per architecture
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> default would be pte_same(). So we could avoid the mkold etc on all other
>>>>>>>> architectures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't that break it's semantics? The "norecency" of
>>>>>>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency() means "recency information in the returned pte
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> be incorrect". But the "norecency" of pte_same_norecency() means "ignore the
>>>>>>> access and dirty bits when you do the comparison".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My idea was that ptep_get_lockless_norecency() would return the actual
>>>>>> result on
>>>>>> these architectures. So e.g., on x86, there would be no actual change in
>>>>>> generated code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a bad plan... You'll end up with subtle differences between
>>>>> architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, the documentation of these functions would have to be improved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I wonder if ptep_get_lockless_norecency() should actively clear
>>>>>> dirty/accessed bits to more easily find any actual issues where the bits still
>>>>>> matter ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a version that took that approach. Decided it was not as good as this way
>>>>> though. Now for the life of me, I can't remember my reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because there are some code paths that check accessed/dirty without
>>>> "correctness" implications? For example, if the PTE is already dirty, no need to
>>>> set it dirty etc?
>>>
>>> I think I decided I was penalizing the architectures that don't care because all
>>> their ptep_get_norecency() and ptep_get_lockless_norecency() need to explicitly
>>> clear access/dirty. And I would have needed ptep_get_norecency() from day 1 so
>>> that I could feed its result into pte_same().
>>
>> True. With ptep_get_norecency() you're also penalizing other architectures.
>> Therefore my original thought about making the behavior arch-specific, but the
>> arch has to make sure to get the combination of
>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()+ptep_same_norecency() is right.
>>
>> So if an arch decide to ignore bits in ptep_get_lockless_norecency(), it must
>> make sure to also ignore them in ptep_same_norecency(), and must be able to
>> handle access/dirty bit changes differently.
>>
>> Maybe one could have one variant for "hw-managed access/dirty" vs. "sw managed
>> accessed or dirty". Only the former would end up ignoring stuff here, the latter
>> would not.
>>
>> But again, just some random thoughts how this affects other architectures and
>> how we could avoid it. The issue I describe in patch #3 would be gone if
>> ptep_same_norecency() would just do a ptep_same() check on other architectures
>> -- and would make it easier to sell :)
>>
> 
> I've been thinking some more about this. I think your proposal is the following:
> 
> 
> // ARM64
> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
> {
> 	- returned access/dirty may be incorrect
> 	- returned access/dirty may be differently incorrect between 2 calls
> }
> pte_same_norecency()
> {
> 	- ignore access/dirty when doing comparison
> }
> ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte)
> {
> 	- must not assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than
> 	  access/dirty in *ptep
> 	- must only set access/dirty in *ptep, never clear
> }
> 
> 
> // Other arches: no change to generated code
> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
> {
> 	return ptep_get_lockless();
> }
> pte_same_norecency()
> {
> 	return pte_same();
> }
> ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte)
> {
> 	- may assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than access/dirty
> 	  in *ptep
> 	- if no HW access/dirty updates, "*ptep = pte" always results in "more
> 	  permissive" change
> }
> 
> An arch either specializes all 3 or none of them.
> 
> This would allow us to get rid of ptep_get_lockless().
> 
> And it addresses the bug you found with ptep_set_access_flags().
> 
> 
> BUT, I still have a nagging feeling that there are likely to be other similar
> problems caused by ignoring access/dirty during pte_same_norecency(). I can't
> convince myself that its definitely all safe and robust.

Right, we'd have to identify the other possible cases and document what 
an arch + common code must stick to to make it work.

Some rules would be: if an arch implements ptep_get_lockless_norecency():

(1) Passing the result from ptep_get_lockless_norecency() to pte_same()
     is wrong.
(2) Checking pte_young()/pte_old/pte_dirty()/pte_clean() after
     ptep_get_lockless_norecency() is very likely wrong.


> 
> So I'm leaning towards dropping patch 3 and therefore keeping
> ptep_get_lockless() around.
> 
> Let me know if you have any insight that might help me change my mind :)

I'm wondering if it would help if we could find a better name (or 
concept) for "norecency" here, that expresses that only on some archs 
we'd have that fuzzy handling.

Keeping ptep_get_lockless() around for now sounds like the best alternative.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb