linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown during page reclamation

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: <CAGsJ_4xCpSFneh7dPriGeM2_z5njB71cXKGfrarc8Kq0CA37CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:50:24 +1200
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        x86@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, corbet@....net, peterz@...radead.org,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        darren@...amperecomputing.com, yangyicong@...ilicon.com,
        huzhanyuan@...o.com, lipeifeng@...o.com, zhangshiming@...o.com,
        guojian@...o.com, realmz6@...il.com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, xhao@...ux.alibaba.com,
        prime.zeng@...ilicon.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown
 during page reclamation

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:45 PM Anshuman Khandual
<anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/20/22 09:09, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 3:00 PM Anshuman Khandual
> > <anshuman.khandual@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8/22/22 13:51, Yicong Yang wrote:
> >>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     return true;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> This needs to be conditional on systems, where there will be performance
> >> improvements, and should not just be enabled all the time on all systems.
> >> num_online_cpus() > X, which does not hold any cpu hotplug lock would be
> >> a good metric ?
> >
> > for a small system, i don't see how this patch will help, e.g. cpus <= 4;
> > so we can actually disable tlb-batch on small systems.
>
> Do not subscribe ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH based on NR_CPUS ?
> That might not help much as the default value is 256 for NR_CPUS.
>
> OR
>
> arch_tlbbatch_should_defer() checks on
>
> 1. online cpus                  (dont enable batched TLB if <= X)
> 2. ARM64_WORKAROUND_REPEAT_TLBI (dont enable batched TLB)
>
> > just need to check if we will have any race condition since hotplug will
> > make the condition true and false dynamically.
>
> If should_defer_flush() evaluate to be false, then ptep_clear_flush()
> clears and flushes the entry right away. This should not race with other
> queued up TLBI requests, which will be flushed separately. Wondering how
> there can be a race here !

Right. How about we make something as below?

static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
    /* for a small system very small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */
    if (num_online_cpus() <= 4 ||
unlikely(this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_REPEAT_TLBI)))
          return false;

#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_WORKAROUND_REPEAT_TLBI
    if (unlikely(this_cpu_has_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_REPEAT_TLBI)))
         return false;
#endif

    return true;
}

Thanks
Barry