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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:36:51 +0000
From:   Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>
To:     Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc:     Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>, 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,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown
 during page reclamation

Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 2:11 AM Punit Agrawal
> <punit.agrawal@...edance.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 2022/10/27 22:19, Punit Agrawal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [ Apologies for chiming in late in the conversation ]
>> >>
>> >> Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> 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 ?
>> >>
>> >> When running the test program in the commit in a VM, I saw benefits from
>> >> the patches at all sizes from 2, 4, 8, 32 vcpus. On the test machine,
>> >> ptep_clear_flush() went from ~1% in the unpatched version to not showing
>> >> up.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Maybe you're booting VM on a server with more than 32 cores and Barry tested
>> > on his 4 CPUs embedded platform. I guess a 4 CPU VM is not fully equivalent to
>> > a 4 CPU real machine as the tbli and dsb in the VM may influence the host
>> > as well.
>>
>> Yeah, I also wondered about this.
>>
>> I was able to test on a 6-core RK3399 based system - there the
>> ptep_clear_flush() was only 0.10% of the overall execution time. The
>> hardware seems to do a pretty good job of keeping the TLB flushing
>> overhead low.

I found a problem with my measurements (missing volatile). Correcting
that increased the overhead somewhat - more below.

> RK3399 has Dual-core ARM Cortex-A72 MPCore processor and
> Quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 MPCore processor. you are probably
> going to see different overhead of ptep_clear_flush() when you
> bind the micro-benchmark on different cores.

Indeed - binding the code on the A53 shows half the overhead from
ptep_clear_flush() compared to the A72.

On the A53 -

    $ perf report --stdio -i perf.vanilla.a53.data | grep ptep_clear_flush
         0.63%  pageout  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] ptep_clear_flush

On the A72

    $ perf report --stdio -i perf.vanilla.a72.data | grep ptep_clear_flush
         1.34%  pageout  [kernel.kallsyms]      [k] ptep_clear_flush


[...]