Message-ID: <f2aad459-e19c-45e2-a7ab-35383e8c3ba5@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:36:20 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Reduce cost of ptep_get_lockless on arm64

On 03.04.24 14:59, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 09:34, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.03.24 18:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2024 17:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 26.03.24 18:32, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On 26/03/2024 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Likely, we just want to read "the real deal" on both sides of the
>>>>>>>>>> pte_same()
>>>>>>>>>> handling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry I'm not sure I understand? You mean read the full pte including
>>>>>>>>> access/dirty? That's the same as dropping the patch, right? Of course if
>>>>>>>>> we do
>>>>>>>>> that, we still have to keep pte_get_lockless() around for this case. In an
>>>>>>>>> ideal
>>>>>>>>> world we would convert everything over to ptep_get_lockless_norecency() and
>>>>>>>>> delete ptep_get_lockless() to remove the ugliness from arm64.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, agreed. Patch #3 does not look too crazy and it wouldn't really affect
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> architecture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do wonder if pte_same_norecency() should be defined per architecture
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> default would be pte_same(). So we could avoid the mkold etc on all other
>>>>>>>> architectures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wouldn't that break it's semantics? The "norecency" of
>>>>>>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency() means "recency information in the returned pte
>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>> be incorrect". But the "norecency" of pte_same_norecency() means "ignore the
>>>>>>> access and dirty bits when you do the comparison".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My idea was that ptep_get_lockless_norecency() would return the actual
>>>>>> result on
>>>>>> these architectures. So e.g., on x86, there would be no actual change in
>>>>>> generated code.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is a bad plan... You'll end up with subtle differences between
>>>>> architectures.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, the documentation of these functions would have to be improved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now I wonder if ptep_get_lockless_norecency() should actively clear
>>>>>> dirty/accessed bits to more easily find any actual issues where the bits still
>>>>>> matter ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I did a version that took that approach. Decided it was not as good as this way
>>>>> though. Now for the life of me, I can't remember my reasoning.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because there are some code paths that check accessed/dirty without
>>>> "correctness" implications? For example, if the PTE is already dirty, no need to
>>>> set it dirty etc?
>>>
>>> I think I decided I was penalizing the architectures that don't care because all
>>> their ptep_get_norecency() and ptep_get_lockless_norecency() need to explicitly
>>> clear access/dirty. And I would have needed ptep_get_norecency() from day 1 so
>>> that I could feed its result into pte_same().
>>
>> True. With ptep_get_norecency() you're also penalizing other architectures.
>> Therefore my original thought about making the behavior arch-specific, but the
>> arch has to make sure to get the combination of
>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()+ptep_same_norecency() is right.
>>
>> So if an arch decide to ignore bits in ptep_get_lockless_norecency(), it must
>> make sure to also ignore them in ptep_same_norecency(), and must be able to
>> handle access/dirty bit changes differently.
>>
>> Maybe one could have one variant for "hw-managed access/dirty" vs. "sw managed
>> accessed or dirty". Only the former would end up ignoring stuff here, the latter
>> would not.
>>
>> But again, just some random thoughts how this affects other architectures and
>> how we could avoid it. The issue I describe in patch #3 would be gone if
>> ptep_same_norecency() would just do a ptep_same() check on other architectures
>> -- and would make it easier to sell :)
>>
> 
> I've been thinking some more about this. I think your proposal is the following:
> 
> 
> // ARM64
> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
> {
> 	- returned access/dirty may be incorrect
> 	- returned access/dirty may be differently incorrect between 2 calls
> }
> pte_same_norecency()
> {
> 	- ignore access/dirty when doing comparison
> }
> ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte)
> {
> 	- must not assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than
> 	  access/dirty in *ptep
> 	- must only set access/dirty in *ptep, never clear
> }
> 
> 
> // Other arches: no change to generated code
> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
> {
> 	return ptep_get_lockless();
> }
> pte_same_norecency()
> {
> 	return pte_same();
> }
> ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte)
> {
> 	- may assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than access/dirty
> 	  in *ptep
> 	- if no HW access/dirty updates, "*ptep = pte" always results in "more
> 	  permissive" change
> }
> 
> An arch either specializes all 3 or none of them.
> 
> This would allow us to get rid of ptep_get_lockless().
> 
> And it addresses the bug you found with ptep_set_access_flags().
> 
> 
> BUT, I still have a nagging feeling that there are likely to be other similar
> problems caused by ignoring access/dirty during pte_same_norecency(). I can't
> convince myself that its definitely all safe and robust.

Right, we'd have to identify the other possible cases and document what 
an arch + common code must stick to to make it work.

Some rules would be: if an arch implements ptep_get_lockless_norecency():

(1) Passing the result from ptep_get_lockless_norecency() to pte_same()
     is wrong.
(2) Checking pte_young()/pte_old/pte_dirty()/pte_clean() after
     ptep_get_lockless_norecency() is very likely wrong.


> 
> So I'm leaning towards dropping patch 3 and therefore keeping
> ptep_get_lockless() around.
> 
> Let me know if you have any insight that might help me change my mind :)

I'm wondering if it would help if we could find a better name (or 
concept) for "norecency" here, that expresses that only on some archs 
we'd have that fuzzy handling.

Keeping ptep_get_lockless() around for now sounds like the best alternative.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists