linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/8] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb option

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: <20201130092523.GK2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 10:25:23 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb
 option

On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:16:26PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 7:54 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On big systems, the mm refcount can become highly contented when doing
> > > a lot of context switching with threaded applications (particularly
> > > switching between the idle thread and an application thread).
> > >
> > > Abandoning lazy tlb slows switching down quite a bit in the important
> > > user->idle->user cases, so so instead implement a non-refcounted scheme
> > > that causes __mmdrop() to IPI all CPUs in the mm_cpumask and shoot down
> > > any remaining lazy ones.
> > >
> > > Shootdown IPIs are some concern, but they have not been observed to be
> > > a big problem with this scheme (the powerpc implementation generated
> > > 314 additional interrupts on a 144 CPU system during a kernel compile).
> > > There are a number of strategies that could be employed to reduce IPIs
> > > if they turn out to be a problem for some workload.
> >
> > I'm still wondering whether we can do even better.
> >
> 
> Hold on a sec.. __mmput() unmaps VMAs, frees pagetables, and flushes
> the TLB.  On x86, this will shoot down all lazies as long as even a
> single pagetable was freed.  (Or at least it will if we don't have a
> serious bug, but the code seems okay.  We'll hit pmd_free_tlb, which
> sets tlb->freed_tables, which will trigger the IPI.)  So, on
> architectures like x86, the shootdown approach should be free.  The
> only way it ought to have any excess IPIs is if we have CPUs in
> mm_cpumask() that don't need IPI to free pagetables, which could
> happen on paravirt.
> 
> Can you try to figure out why you saw any increase in IPIs?  It would
> be nice if we can make the new code unconditional.

Power doesn't do IPI based TLBI.