linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] 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: <ecd161db-b290-7997-a81e-a0a00bd1c599@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 16:11:59 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To:     Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc:     yangyicong@...ilicon.com, corbet@....net, peterz@...radead.org,
        arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        darren@...amperecomputing.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, linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.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>,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown
 during page reclamation



On 9/28/22 05:53, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:15 PM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/9/27 14:16, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> On 9/21/22 14:13, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    /* for small systems with small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */
>>>> +    if (num_online_cpus() <= 4)
>>>
>>> It would be great to have some more inputs from others, whether 4 (which should
>>> to be codified into a macro e.g ARM64_NR_CPU_DEFERRED_TLB, or something similar)
>>> is optimal for an wide range of arm64 platforms.
>>>
> 
> I have tested it on a 4-cpus and 8-cpus machine. but i have no machine
> with 5,6,7
> cores.
> I saw improvement on 8-cpus machines and I found 4-cpus machines don't need
> this patch.
> 
> so it seems safe to have
> if (num_online_cpus()  < 8)
> 
>>
>> Do you prefer this macro to be static or make it configurable through kconfig then
>> different platforms can make choice based on their own situations? It maybe hard to
>> test on all the arm64 platforms.
> 
> Maybe we can have this default enabled on machines with 8 and more cpus and
> provide a tlbflush_batched = on or off to allow users enable or
> disable it according
> to their hardware and products. Similar example: rodata=on or off.

No, sounds bit excessive. Kernel command line options should not be added
for every possible run time switch options.

> 
> Hi Anshuman, Will,  Catalin, Andrew,
> what do you think about this approach?
> 
> BTW, haoxin mentioned another important user scenarios for tlb bach on arm64:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/393d6318-aa38-01ed-6ad8-f9eac89bf0fc@linux.alibaba.com/
> 
> I do believe we need it based on the expensive cost of tlb shootdown in arm64
> even by hardware broadcast.

Alright, for now could we enable ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH selectively
with CONFIG_EXPERT and for num_online_cpus()  > 8 ?