[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhr0owrsv0.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 15:03:15 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"rcu@...r.kernel.org" <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Juerg Haefliger <juerg.haefliger@...onical.com>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Chuang Wang <nashuiliang@...il.com>,
Yang Jihong <yangjihong1@...wei.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Julian Pidancet <julian.pidancet@...cle.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>,
Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Yair Podemsky <ypodemsk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/20] x86/mm, mm/vmalloc: Defer
flush_tlb_kernel_range() targeting NOHZ_FULL CPUs
Sorry, I missed out Dave's email, so now I'm taking my time to page (hah!)
all of this.
On 25/07/23 15:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:40:04AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>> TLB flushes for freed page tables are another game entirely. The CPU is
>> free to cache any part of the paging hierarchy it wants at any time.
>> It's also free to set accessed and dirty bits at any time, even for
>> instructions that may never execute architecturally.
>>
>> That basically means that if you have *ANY* freed page table page
>> *ANYWHERE* in the page table hierarchy of any CPU at any time ... you're
>> screwed.
>>
>> There's no reasoning about accesses or ordering. As soon as the CPU
>> does *anything*, it's out to get you.
>>
OK, I feel like I need to go back do some more reading now, but I think I
get the difference. Thanks for spelling it out.
>> You're going to need to do something a lot more radical to deal with
>> free page table pages.
>
> Ha! IIRC the only thing we can reasonably do there is to have strict
> per-cpu page-tables such that NOHZ_FULL CPUs can be isolated. That is,
> as long we the per-cpu tables do not contain -- and have never contained
> -- a particular table page, we can avoid flushing it. Because if it
> never was there, it also couldn't have speculatively loaded it.
>
> Now, x86 doesn't really do per-cpu page tables easily (otherwise we'd
> have done them ages ago) and doing them is going to be *major* surgery
> and pain.
>
> Other than that, we must take the TLBI-IPI when freeing
> page-table-pages.
>
>
> But yeah, I think Nadav is right, vmalloc.c never frees page-tables (or
> at least, I couldn't find it in a hurry either), but if we're going to
> be doing this, then that file must include a very prominent comment
> explaining it must never actually do so either.
>
I also couldn't find any freeing of the page-table-pages, I'll do another
pass and sharpen my quill for a big fat comment.
> Not being able to free page-tables might be a 'problem' if we're going
> to be doing more of HUGE_VMALLOC, because that means it becomes rather
> hard to swizzle from small to large pages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists