[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180823133958.GA1496@brain-police>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:39:59 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Adin Scannell <ascannell@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/tlb, x86/mm: Support invalidating TLB caches for
RCU_TABLE_FREE
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:11:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:54 PM Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So we do need a different flush instruction for the page tables vs. the
> > normal TLB pages.
>
> Right. ARM wants it too. x86 is odd in that a regular "invlpg" already
> invalidates all the internal tlb cache nodes.
>
> So the "new world order" is exactly that patch that PeterZ sent you, that adds a
>
> + unsigned int freed_tables : 1;
>
> to the 'struct mmu_gather', and then makes all those
> pte/pmd/pud/p4d_free_tlb() functions set that bit.
>
> So I'm referring to the email PeterZ sent you in this thread that said:
>
> Nick, Will is already looking at using this to remove the synchronous
> invalidation from __p*_free_tlb() for ARM, could you have a look to see
> if PowerPC-radix could benefit from that too?
>
> Basically, using a patch like the below, would give your tlb_flush()
> information on if tables were removed or not.
>
> then, in that model, you do *not* need to override these
> pte/pmd/pud/p4d_free_tlb() macros at all (well, you *can* if you want
> to, for doing games with the range modification, but let's sayt that
> you don't need that right now).
>
> So instead, when you get to the actual "tlb_flush(tlb)", you do
> exactly that - flush the tlb. And the mmu_gather structure shows you
> how much you need to flush. If you see that "freed_tables" is set,
> then you know that you need to also do the special instruction to
> flush the inner level caches. The range continues to show the page
> range.
The only problem with this approach is that we've lost track of the granule
size by the point we get to the tlb_flush(), so we can't adjust the stride of
the TLB invalidations for huge mappings, which actually works nicely in the
synchronous case (e.g. we perform a single invalidation for a 2MB mapping,
rather than iterating over it at a 4k granule).
One thing we could do is switch to synchronous mode if we detect a change in
granule (i.e. treat it like a batch failure).
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists