[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <cover.1607059162.git.luto@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:26:15 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@...abs.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: [RFC v2 0/2] lazy mm refcounting
This is part of a larger series here, but the beginning bit is irrelevant
to the current discussion:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/mm&id=203d39d11562575fd8bd6a094d97a3a332d8b265
This is IMO a lot better than v1. It's now almost entirely in generic
code. (It looks like it's 100% generic, but that's a lie -- the
generic code currently that all possible lazy mm refs are in
mm_cpumask(), and that's not true on all arches. So, if we take my
approach, we'll need to have a little arch hook to control this.)
Here's how I think it fits with various arches:
x86: On bare metal (i.e. paravirt flush unavailable), the loop won't do
much. The existing TLB shootdown when user tables are freed will
empty mm_cpumask of everything but the calling CPU. So x86 ends up
pretty close to as good as we can get short of reworking mm_cpumask() itself.
arm64: It needs the fixup above for correctness, but I think performance
should be pretty good. Compared to current kernels, we lose an mmgrab()
and mmdrop() on each lazy transition, and we add a reasonably fast loop
over all cpus on process exit. Someone (probably me) needs to make
sure we don't need some extra barriers.
power: Similar to x86.
s390x: Should be essentially the same as arm64.
Other arches: I don't know. Further research is required.
What do you all think?
Andy Lutomirski (2):
[NEEDS HELP] x86/mm: Handle unlazying membarrier core sync in the arch
code
[MOCKUP] sched/mm: Lightweight lazy mm refcounting
arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 17 +++++-
kernel/fork.c | 4 ++
kernel/sched/core.c | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 11 +++-
4 files changed, 145 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--
2.28.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists