linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] targeted TLB sync IPIs for lockless page table

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: <06d48a52-e4ec-47cd-b3fb-0fccd4dc49f4@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:25:04 +0100
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@...nel.org>
To: Lance Yang <lance.yang@...ux.dev>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 aneesh.kumar@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, baohua@...nel.org,
 baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, dev.jain@....com,
 hpa@...or.com, hughd@...gle.com, ioworker0@...il.com, jannh@...gle.com,
 jgross@...e.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com, mingo@...hat.com, npache@...hat.com,
 npiggin@...il.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com,
 ryan.roberts@....com, seanjc@...gle.com, shy828301@...il.com,
 tglx@...utronix.de, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, will@...nel.org,
 x86@...nel.org, ypodemsk@...hat.com, ziy@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] targeted TLB sync IPIs for lockless page table

On 2/2/26 16:52, Lance Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2026/2/2 23:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 10:37:39PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PT_RECLAIM=y does have IPI for unshare/collapse — those paths call
>>> tlb_flush_unshared_tables() (for hugetlb unshare) and 
>>> collapse_huge_page()
>>> (in khugepaged collapse), which already send IPIs today (broadcast to 
>>> all
>>> CPUs via tlb_remove_table_sync_one()).
>>>
>>> What PT_RECLAIM=y doesn't need IPI for is table freeing (
>>> __tlb_remove_table_one() uses call_rcu() instead). But table 
>>> modification
>>> (unshare, collapse) still needs IPI to synchronize with lockless 
>>> walkers,
>>> regardless of PT_RECLAIM.
>>>
>>> So PT_RECLAIM=y is not broken; it already has IPI where needed. This 
>>> series
>>> just makes those IPIs targeted instead of broadcast. Does that clarify?
>>
>> Oh bah, reading is hard. I had missed they had more table_sync_one() 
>> calls,
>> rather than remove_table_one().
>>
>> So you *can* replace table_sync_one() with rcu_sync(), that will provide
>> the same guarantees. Its just a 'little' bit slower on the update side,
>> but does not incur the read side cost.
> 
> Yep, we could replace the IPI with synchronize_rcu() on the sync side:
> 
> - Currently: TLB flush → send IPI → wait for walkers to finish
> - With synchronize_rcu(): TLB flush → synchronize_rcu() -> waits for 
> grace period
> 
> Lockless walkers (e.g. GUP-fast) use local_irq_disable(); 
> synchronize_rcu() also
> waits for regions with preemption/interrupts disabled, so it should 
> work, IIUC.
> 
> And then, the trade-off would be:
> - Read side: zero cost (no per-CPU tracking)
> - Write side: wait for RCU grace period (potentially slower)
> 
> For collapse/unshare, that write-side latency might be acceptable :)
> 
> @David, what do you think?

Given that we just fixed the write-side latency from breaking Oracle's 
databases completely, we have to be a bit careful here :)

The thing is: on many x86 configs we don't need *any* TLB flushed or RCU 
syncs.

So "how much slower" are we talking about, especially on bigger/loaded 
systems?

-- 
Cheers,

David