[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a51jfl44.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 15:31:39 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon
<will@...nel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, David
Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes
<lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Zi Yan
<ziy@...dia.com>, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>, Ryan
Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
"Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@...two.org>, Dev Jain
<dev.jain@....com>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>, Kefeng Wang
<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>, Yin
Fengwei <fengwei_yin@...ux.alibaba.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 2/2] arm64, tlbflush: don't TLBI broadcast if page
reused in write fault
Hi, Barry,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> writes:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index aa89c2e67ebc..35bae2e4bcfe 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -130,12 +130,16 @@ static inline void arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>> #endif /* CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE */
>>
>> /*
>> - * Outside of a few very special situations (e.g. hibernation), we always
>> - * use broadcast TLB invalidation instructions, therefore a spurious page
>> - * fault on one CPU which has been handled concurrently by another CPU
>> - * does not need to perform additional invalidation.
>> + * We use local TLB invalidation instruction when reusing page in
>> + * write protection fault handler to avoid TLBI broadcast in the hot
>> + * path. This will cause spurious page faults if stall read-only TLB
>> + * entries exist.
>> */
>> -#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(vma, address, ptep) do { } while (0)
>> +#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault(vma, address, ptep) \
>> + local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify(vma, address)
>> +
>> +#define flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault_pmd(vma, address, pmdp) \
>> + local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify(vma, address)
>>
>> /*
>> * ZERO_PAGE is a global shared page that is always zero: used
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> index 18a5dc0c9a54..651b31fd18bb 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
>> @@ -249,6 +249,18 @@ static inline unsigned long get_trans_granule(void)
>> * cannot be easily determined, the value TLBI_TTL_UNKNOWN will
>> * perform a non-hinted invalidation.
>> *
>> + * local_flush_tlb_page(vma, addr)
>> + * Local variant of flush_tlb_page(). Stale TLB entries may
>> + * remain in remote CPUs.
>> + *
>> + * local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify(vma, addr)
>> + * Same as local_flush_tlb_page() except MMU notifier will not be
>> + * called.
>> + *
>> + * local_flush_tlb_contpte_range(vma, start, end)
>> + * Invalidate the virtual-address range '[start, end)' mapped with
>> + * contpte on local CPU for the user address space corresponding
>> + * to 'vma->mm'. Stale TLB entries may remain in remote CPUs.
>> *
>> * Finally, take a look at asm/tlb.h to see how tlb_flush() is implemented
>> * on top of these routines, since that is our interface to the mmu_gather
>> @@ -282,6 +294,33 @@ static inline void flush_tlb_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(mm, 0, -1UL);
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void __local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync(
>> + struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long uaddr)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long addr;
>> +
>> + dsb(nshst);
>
> We were issuing dsb(ishst) even for the nosync case, likely to ensure
> PTE visibility across cores. However, since set_ptes already includes a
> dsb(ishst) in __set_pte_complete(), does this mean we’re being overly
> cautious in __flush_tlb_page_nosync() in many cases?
>
> static inline void __flush_tlb_page_nosync(struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned long uaddr)
> {
> unsigned long addr;
>
> dsb(ishst);
> addr = __TLBI_VADDR(uaddr, ASID(mm));
> __tlbi(vale1is, addr);
> __tlbi_user(vale1is, addr);
> mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(mm, uaddr & PAGE_MASK,
> (uaddr & PAGE_MASK) +
> PAGE_SIZE);
> }
IIUC, _nosync() here means doesn't synchronize with the following code.
It still synchronizes with the previous code, mainly the page table
changing. And, Yes. There may be room to improve this.
> On the other hand, __ptep_set_access_flags() doesn’t seem to use
> set_ptes(), so there’s no guarantee the updated PTEs are visible to all
> cores. If a remote CPU later encounters a page fault and performs a TLB
> invalidation, will it still see a stable PTE?
I don't think so. We just flush local TLB in local_flush_tlb_page()
family functions. So, we only needs to guarantee the page table changes
are available for the local page table walking. If a page fault occurs
on a remote CPU, we will call local_flush_tlb_page() on the remote CPU.
>> + addr = __TLBI_VADDR(uaddr, ASID(mm));
>> + __tlbi(vale1, addr);
>> + __tlbi_user(vale1, addr);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify(
>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long uaddr)
>> +{
>> + __local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync(vma->vm_mm, uaddr);
>> + dsb(nsh);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void local_flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> + unsigned long uaddr)
>> +{
>> + __local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync(vma->vm_mm, uaddr);
>> + mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(vma->vm_mm, uaddr & PAGE_MASK,
>> + (uaddr & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE);
>> + dsb(nsh);
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void __flush_tlb_page_nosync(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> unsigned long uaddr)
>> {
>> @@ -472,6 +511,23 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> dsb(ish);
>> }
>>
>
> We already have functions like
> __flush_tlb_page_nosync() and __flush_tlb_range_nosync().
> Is there a way to factor out or extract their common parts?
>
> Is it because of the differences in barriers that this extraction of
> common code isn’t feasible?
Yes. It's a good idea to do some code clean to reduce code duplication.
Ryan has plan to work on this.
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists