[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aUVHAD9G5_HKlYsR@hyeyoo>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 21:37:20 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <david@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm/hugetlb: fix excessive IPI broadcasts when
unsharing PMD tables using mmu_gather
On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 08:10:19AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> As reported, ever since commit 1013af4f585f ("mm/hugetlb: fix
> huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race") we can end up in some situations
> where we perform so many IPI broadcasts when unsharing hugetlb PMD page
> tables that it severely regresses some workloads.
>
> In particular, when we fork()+exit(), or when we munmap() a large
> area backed by many shared PMD tables, we perform one IPI broadcast per
> unshared PMD table.
>
[...snip...]
> Fixes: 1013af4f585f ("mm/hugetlb: fix huge_pmd_unshare() vs GUP-fast race")
> Reported-by: Uschakow, Stanislav" <suschako@...zon.de>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/4d3878531c76479d9f8ca9789dc6485d@amazon.de/
> Tested-by: Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) <david@...nel.org>
> ---
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 19 +++---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> mm/mmu_gather.c | 7 +++
> mm/mprotect.c | 2 +-
> mm/rmap.c | 25 +++++---
> 6 files changed, 179 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -6522,22 +6511,16 @@ long hugetlb_change_protection(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte = huge_pte_clear_uffd_wp(pte);
> huge_ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, address, ptep, old_pte, pte);
> pages++;
> + tlb_remove_huge_tlb_entry(h, tlb, ptep, address);
> }
>
> next:
> spin_unlock(ptl);
> cond_resched();
> }
> - /*
> - * There is nothing protecting a previously-shared page table that we
> - * unshared through huge_pmd_unshare() from getting freed after we
> - * release i_mmap_rwsem, so flush the TLB now. If huge_pmd_unshare()
> - * succeeded, flush the range corresponding to the pud.
> - */
> - if (shared_pmd)
> - flush_hugetlb_tlb_range(vma, range.start, range.end);
> - else
> - flush_hugetlb_tlb_range(vma, start, end);
> +
> + tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb);
> + huge_pmd_unshare_flush(tlb, vma);
Shouldn't we teach mmu_gather that it has to call
flush_hugetlb_tlb_range() instead of ordinary TLB flush routine,
otherwise it will break ARCHes that has "special requirements"
for evicting hugetlb backing TLB entries?
> /*
> * No need to call mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs() we are
> * downgrading page table protection not changing it to point to a new
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists