linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] mm/khugepaged: skip redundant IPI in collapse_huge

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6dcfeb2a-dba6-4de9-ac1b-39312c6bbcb6@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:25:38 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
Cc: will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...nel.org, npiggin@...il.com,
 peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, ziy@...dia.com, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, npache@...hat.com, ryan.roberts@....com,
 dev.jain@....com, baohua@...nel.org, ioworker0@...il.com,
 shy828301@...il.com, riel@...riel.com, jannh@...gle.com,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] mm/khugepaged: skip redundant IPI in
 collapse_huge_page()

On 12/18/25 15:35, Lance Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2025/12/18 21:13, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> On 12/13/25 09:00, Lance Yang wrote:
>>> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
>>>
>>> Similar to the hugetlb PMD unsharing optimization, skip the second IPI
>>> in collapse_huge_page() when the TLB flush already provides necessary
>>> synchronization.
>>>
>>> Before commit a37259732a7d ("x86/mm: Make MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE
>>> unconditional"), bare metal x86 didn't enable MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE.
>>> In that configuration, tlb_remove_table_sync_one() was a NOP. GUP-fast
>>> synchronization relied on IRQ disabling, which blocks TLB flush IPIs.
>>>
>>> When Rik made MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE unconditional to support AMD's
>>> INVLPGB, all x86 systems started sending the second IPI. However, on
>>> native x86 this is redundant:
>>>
>>>     - pmdp_collapse_flush() calls flush_tlb_range(), sending IPIs to all
>>>       CPUs to invalidate TLB entries
>>>
>>>     - GUP-fast runs with IRQs disabled, so when the flush IPI completes,
>>>       any concurrent GUP-fast must have finished
>>>
>>>     - tlb_remove_table_sync_one() provides no additional synchronization
>>>
>>> On x86, skip the second IPI when running native (without paravirt) and
>>> without INVLPGB. For paravirt with non-native flush_tlb_multi and for
>>> INVLPGB, conservatively keep both IPIs.
>>>
>>> Use tlb_table_flush_implies_ipi_broadcast(), consistent with the hugetlb
>>> optimization.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/khugepaged.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>    1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> index 97d1b2824386..06ea793a8190 100644
>>> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
>>> @@ -1178,7 +1178,12 @@ static int collapse_huge_page(struct mm_struct
>>> *mm, unsigned long address,
>>>        _pmd = pmdp_collapse_flush(vma, address, pmd);
>>>        spin_unlock(pmd_ptl);
>>>        mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
>>> -    tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Skip the second IPI if the TLB flush above already synchronized
>>> +     * with concurrent GUP-fast via broadcast IPIs.
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (!tlb_table_flush_implies_ipi_broadcast())
>>> +        tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
>>
>> We end up calling
>>
>>       flush_tlb_range(vma, address, address + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
>>
>>       -> flush_tlb_mm_range(freed_tables = true)
>>
>>       -> flush_tlb_multi(mm_cpumask(mm), info);
>>
>> So freed_tables=true and we should be doing the right thing.
> 
> Yep ;)
> 
>> BTW, I was wondering whether we should embed that
>> tlb_table_flush_implies_ipi_broadcast() check in
>> tlb_remove_table_sync_one() instead.
>> It then relies on the caller to do the right thing (flush with
>> freed_tables=true or unshared_tables = true).
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Good point! Let me check the other callers to ensure they
> are all preceded by a flush with freed_tables=true (or unshared_tables).
> 
> Will get back to you with what I find :)

The use case in tlb_table_flush() is a bit confusing. But I would assume 
that we have a TLB flush with remove_tables=true beforehand. Otherwise 
we cannot possibly free the page table.

-- 
Cheers

David