linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <535942A3.3020800@sr71.net>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:58:11 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC:	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, riel@...hat.com, alex.shi@...aro.org,
	dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy
 TLB flushing

On 04/24/2014 01:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * See Documentation/x86/tlb.txt for details.  We choose 33
>> + * because it is large enough to cover the vast majority (at
>> + * least 95%) of allocations, and is small enough that we are
>> + * confident it will not cause too much overhead.  Each single
>> + * flush is about 100 cycles, so this caps the maximum overhead
>> + * at _about_ 3,000 cycles.
>> + */
>> +/* in units of pages */
>> +unsigned long tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling = 1;
>> +
> 
> This comment is premature. The documentation file does not exist yet and
> 33 means nothing yet. Out of curiousity though, how confident are you
> that a TLB flush is generally 100 cycles across different generations
> and manufacturers of CPUs? I'm not suggesting you change it or auto-tune
> it, am just curious.

Yeah, the comment belongs in the later patch where I set it to 33.

I looked at this on the last few generations of Intel CPUs.  "100
cycles" was a very general statement, and not precise at all.  My laptop
averages out to 113 cycles overall, but the flushes of 25 pages averaged
96 cycles/page while the flushes of 2 averaged 219/page.

Those cycles include some costs of from the instrumentation as well.

I did not test on other CPU manufacturers, but this should be pretty
easy to reproduce.  I'm happy to help folks re-run it on other hardware.

I also believe with the modalias stuff we've got in sysfs for the CPU
objects we can do this in the future with udev rules instead of
hard-coding it in the kernel.

>> -	/* In modern CPU, last level tlb used for both data/ins */
>> -	if (vmflag & VM_EXEC)
>> -		tlb_entries = tlb_lli_4k[ENTRIES];
>> -	else
>> -		tlb_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
>> -
>> -	/* Assume all of TLB entries was occupied by this task */
>> -	act_entries = tlb_entries >> tlb_flushall_shift;
>> -	act_entries = mm->total_vm > act_entries ? act_entries : mm->total_vm;
>> -	nr_base_pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -
>> -	/* tlb_flushall_shift is on balance point, details in commit log */
>> -	if (nr_base_pages > act_entries) {
>> +	if ((end - start) > tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling * PAGE_SIZE) {
>>  		count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL);
>>  		local_flush_tlb();
>>  	} else {
> 
> We lose the different tuning based on whether the flush is for instructions
> or data. However, I cannot think of a good reason for keeping it as I
> expect that flushes of instructions is relatively rare. The benefit, if
> any, will be marginal. Still, if you do another revision it would be
> nice to call this out in the changelog.

Will do.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/