[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fcb92f87-063e-4042-8313-0154941404fa@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 05:45:13 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org
Cc: wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, ryan.roberts@....com, baohua@...nel.org,
pjaroszynski@...dia.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH v2] arm64/mm: Elide TLB flush in certain pte
protection transitions
On 17/10/25 9:32 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
> Currently arm64 does an unconditional TLB flush in mprotect(). This is not
> required for some cases, for example, when changing from PROT_NONE to
> PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE (a real usecase - glibc malloc does this to emulate
> growing into the non-main heaps), and unsetting uffd-wp in a range.
>
> Therefore, implement pte_needs_flush() for arm64, which is already
> implemented by some other arches as well.
>
> Running a userspace program changing permissions back and forth between
> PROT_NONE and PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, and measuring the average time taken
> for the none->rw transition, I get a reduction from 3.2 microseconds to
> 2.85 microseconds, giving a 12.3% improvement.
>
> Reviewed-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
> ---
> mm-selftests pass. Based on 6.18-rc1.
>
> v1->v2:
> - Drop PTE_PRESENT_INVALID and PTE_AF checks, use ptdesc_t instead of
> pteval_t, return !!diff (Ryan)
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 18a5dc0c9a54..40df783ba09a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -524,6 +524,33 @@ static inline void arch_tlbbatch_add_pending(struct arch_tlbflush_unmap_batch *b
> {
> __flush_tlb_range_nosync(mm, start, end, PAGE_SIZE, true, 3);
> }
> +
> +static inline bool __pte_flags_need_flush(ptdesc_t oldval, ptdesc_t newval)
> +{
> + ptdesc_t diff = oldval ^ newval;
> +
> + /* invalid to valid transition requires no flush */
> + if (!(oldval & PTE_VALID))
Using pte_valid() helper would be better.
if (!pte_valid(oldval))
return false;
> + return false;
> +
> + /* Transition in the SW bits requires no flush */
> + diff &= ~PTE_SWBITS_MASK;
> +
> + return !!diff;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool pte_needs_flush(pte_t oldpte, pte_t newpte)
> +{
> + return __pte_flags_need_flush(pte_val(oldpte), pte_val(newpte));
> +}
> +#define pte_needs_flush pte_needs_flush
> +
> +static inline bool huge_pmd_needs_flush(pmd_t oldpmd, pmd_t newpmd)
> +{
> + return __pte_flags_need_flush(pmd_val(oldpmd), pmd_val(newpmd));
> +}
> +#define huge_pmd_needs_flush huge_pmd_needs_flush
> +
> #endif
>
> #endif
Powered by blists - more mailing lists