[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3955deea-141f-cbc9-2180-918ef165b823@c-s.fr>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:01:08 +0200
From: Christophe LEROY <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Scott Wood <oss@...error.net>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/mm: Only read faulting instruction when
necessary in do_page_fault()
Le 01/05/2017 à 05:00, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:13:01 +0200 (CEST)
> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr> wrote:
>
>> Commit a7a9dcd882a67 ("powerpc: Avoid taking a data miss on every
>> userspace instruction miss") has shown that limiting the read of
>> faulting instruction to likely cases improves performance.
>>
>> This patch goes further into this direction by limiting the read
>> of the faulting instruction to the only cases where it is definitly
>> needed.
>>
>> On an MPC885, with the same benchmark app as in the commit referred
>> above, we see a reduction of 4000 dTLB misses (approx 3%):
>>
>> Before the patch:
>> Performance counter stats for './fault 500' (10 runs):
>>
>> 720495838 cpu-cycles ( +- 0.04% )
>> 141769 dTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.02% )
>> 52722 iTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.01% )
>> 19611 faults ( +- 0.02% )
>>
>> 5.750535176 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.16% )
>>
>> With the patch:
>> Performance counter stats for './fault 500' (10 runs):
>>
>> 717669123 cpu-cycles ( +- 0.02% )
>> 137344 dTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.03% )
>> 52731 iTLB-load-misses ( +- 0.01% )
>> 19614 faults ( +- 0.03% )
>>
>> 5.728423115 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.14% )
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
>> ---
>> v2: Changes 'if (cond1) if (cond2)' by 'if (cond1 && cond2)'
>>
>> In case the instruction we read has value 0, store_update_sp() will
>> return false, so it will bail out.
>>
>> This patch applies after the serie "powerpc/mm: some cleanup of do_page_fault()"
>>
>> arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> index 400f2d0d42f8..2ec82a279d28 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -280,14 +280,6 @@ int do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,
>>
>> perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);
>>
>> - /*
>> - * We want to do this outside mmap_sem, because reading code around nip
>> - * can result in fault, which will cause a deadlock when called with
>> - * mmap_sem held
>> - */
>> - if (is_write && is_user)
>> - __get_user(inst, (unsigned int __user *)regs->nip);
>> -
>> if (is_user)
>> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_USER;
>>
>> @@ -356,8 +348,18 @@ int do_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long address,
>> * between the last mapped region and the stack will
>> * expand the stack rather than segfaulting.
>> */
>> - if (address + 2048 < uregs->gpr[1] && !store_updates_sp(inst))
>> - goto bad_area;
>> + if (address + 2048 < uregs->gpr[1] && !inst) {
>> + /*
>> + * We want to do this outside mmap_sem, because reading
>> + * code around nip can result in fault, which will cause
>> + * a deadlock when called with mmap_sem held
>> + */
>> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> + __get_user(inst, (unsigned int __user *)regs->nip);
>> + if (!store_updates_sp(inst))
>> + goto bad_area_nosemaphore;
>> + goto retry;
>> + }
>
> Yes, nice patch. I wonder if you can do __get_user first as non-faulting to
> avoid retaking the mmap_sem and retrying? Along the lines of:
>
> + nip = (unsigned int __user *)regs->nip;
> + pagefault_disable();
> + if (unlikely(__get_user_inatomic(inst, nip))) {
> + pagefault_enable();
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + if (get_user(inst, nip)) {
> ...
> goto retry;
>
> The user instruction should practically always have a Linux pte, so a
> fault there should be exceedingly rare, I think?
Thanks Nick.
I have submitted a new version of the patch taking your suggestion into
accout.
Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists