lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [v2 PATCH] mm: mmu_gather: remove __tlb_reset_range() for force flush
From
Date


On 5/16/19 11:29 PM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:01:09PM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/13/19 9:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:26:54AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>>> index 99740e1..469492d 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>>>> @@ -245,14 +245,39 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>>>> {
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes on same range
>>>>> - * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
>>>>> - * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can fail to flush
>>>>> - * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example so flush TLB
>>>>> - * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>>>> + * under non-exclusive lock (e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but defer TLB
>>>>> + * flush by batching, one thread may end up seeing inconsistent PTEs
>>>>> + * and result in having stale TLB entries. So flush TLB forcefully
>>>>> + * if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * However, some syscalls, e.g. munmap(), may free page tables, this
>>>>> + * needs force flush everything in the given range. Otherwise this
>>>>> + * may result in having stale TLB entries for some architectures,
>>>>> + * e.g. aarch64, that could specify flush what level TLB.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
>>>>> - __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
>>>>> - __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
>>>>> + if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->fullmm) {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Since we can't tell what we actually should have
>>>>> + * flushed, flush everything in the given range.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + tlb->freed_tables = 1;
>>>>> + tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
>>>>> + tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
>>>>> + tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
>>>>> + tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Some architectures, e.g. ARM, that have range invalidation
>>>>> + * and care about VM_EXEC for I-Cache invalidation, need force
>>>>> + * vma_exec set.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + tlb->vma_exec = 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Force vma_huge clear to guarantee safer flush */
>>>>> + tlb->vma_huge = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + tlb->start = start;
>>>>> + tlb->end = end;
>>>>> }
>>>> Whilst I think this is correct, it would be interesting to see whether
>>>> or not it's actually faster than just nuking the whole mm, as I mentioned
>>>> before.
>>>>
>>>> At least in terms of getting a short-term fix, I'd prefer the diff below
>>>> if it's not measurably worse.
>>> I did a quick test with ebizzy (96 threads with 5 iterations) on my x86 VM,
>>> it shows slightly slowdown on records/s but much more sys time spent with
>>> fullmm flush, the below is the data.
>>>
>>>                                     nofullmm                 fullmm
>>> ops (records/s)              225606                  225119
>>> sys (s)                            0.69                        1.14
>>>
>>> It looks the slight reduction of records/s is caused by the increase of sys
>>> time.
>> That's not what I expected, and I'm unable to explain why moving to fullmm
>> would /increase/ the system time. I would've thought the time spent doing
>> the invalidation would decrease, with the downside that the TLB is cold
>> when returning back to userspace.
>>
> I tried ebizzy with various parameters (malloc vs mmap, ran it for hour),
> but performance was very similar for both patches.
>
> So, I was looking for workload that would demonstrate the largest difference.
> Inspired by python xml-rpc, which can handle each request in new thread,
> I tried following [1]:
>
> 16 threads, each looping 100k times over:
> mmap(16M)
> touch 1 page
> madvise(DONTNEED)
> munmap(16M)
>
> This yields quite significant difference for 2 patches when running on
> my 46 CPU arm host. I checked it twice - applied patch, recompiled, rebooted,
> but numbers stayed +- couple seconds the same.

Thanks for the testing. I'm a little bit surprised by the significant
difference.

I did the same test on my x86 VM (24 cores), they yield almost same number.

Given the significant improvement on arm64 with fullmm version, I'm
going to respin the patch.

>
> Does it somewhat match your expectation?
>
> v2 patch
> ---------
> real 2m33.460s
> user 0m3.359s
> sys 15m32.307s
>
> real 2m33.895s
> user 0m2.749s
> sys 16m34.500s
>
> real 2m35.666s
> user 0m3.528s
> sys 15m23.377s
>
> real 2m32.898s
> user 0m2.789s
> sys 16m18.801s
>
> real 2m33.087s
> user 0m3.565s
> sys 16m23.815s
>
>
> fullmm version
> ---------------
> real 0m46.811s
> user 0m1.596s
> sys 1m47.500s
>
> real 0m47.322s
> user 0m1.803s
> sys 1m48.449s
>
> real 0m46.668s
> user 0m1.508s
> sys 1m47.352s
>
> real 0m46.742s
> user 0m2.007s
> sys 1m47.217s
>
> real 0m46.948s
> user 0m1.785s
> sys 1m47.906s
>
> [1] https://github.com/jstancek/reproducers/blob/master/kernel/page_fault_stall/mmap8.c

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-20 05:00    [W:0.048 / U:17.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site