linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1] arm64: kvm: flush tlbs by range in unmap_stage2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:12:34 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Zhenyu Ye <yezhenyu2@...wei.com>
Cc:     james.morse@....com, julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com,
        suzuki.poulose@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        steven.price@....com, mark.rutland@....com, ascull@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, arm@...nel.org,
        xiexiangyou@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH v1] arm64: kvm: flush tlbs by range in
 unmap_stage2_range function

Zhenyu,

On 2020-07-27 15:51, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> On 2020/7/26 1:40, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2020-07-24 14:43, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
>>> Now in unmap_stage2_range(), we flush tlbs one by one just after the
>>> corresponding pages cleared.  However, this may cause some 
>>> performance
>>> problems when the unmap range is very large (such as when the vm
>>> migration rollback, this may cause vm downtime too loog).
>> 
>> You keep resending this patch, but you don't give any numbers
>> that would back your assertion.
> 
> I have tested the downtime of vm migration rollback on arm64, and found
> the downtime could even take up to 7s.  Then I traced the cost of
> unmap_stage2_range() and found it could take a maximum of 1.2s.  The
> vm configuration is as follows (with high memory pressure, the dirty
> rate is about 500MB/s):
> 
>   <memory unit='GiB'>192</memory>
>   <vcpu placement='static'>48</vcpu>
>   <memoryBacking>
>     <hugepages>
>       <page size='1' unit='GiB' nodeset='0'/>
>     </hugepages>
>   </memoryBacking>

This means nothing to me, I'm afraid.

> 
> After this patch applied, the cost of unmap_stage2_range() can reduce 
> to
> 16ms, and VM downtime can be less than 1s.
> 
> The following figure shows a clear comparison:
> 
> 	      |	vm downtime  |	cost of unmap_stage2_range()
> --------------+--------------+----------------------------------
> before change |		7s   |		1200 ms
> after  change |		1s   |		  16 ms
> --------------+--------------+----------------------------------

I don't see how you turn a 1.184s reduction into a 6s gain.
Surely there is more to it than what you posted.

>>> +
>>> +    if ((end - start) >= 512 << (PAGE_SHIFT - 12)) {
>>> +        __tlbi(vmalls12e1is);
>> 
>> And what is this magic value based on? You don't even mention in the
>> commit log that you are taking this shortcut.
>> 
> 
> 
> If the page num is bigger than 512, flush all tlbs of this vm to avoid
> soft lock-ups on large TLB flushing ranges.  Just like what the
> flush_tlb_range() does.

I'm not sure this is applicable here, and it doesn't mean
this is as good on other systems.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...