From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: x86@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
kernel-team@fb.com, tglx@linutronix.de, efault@gmx.de,
songliubraving@fb.com, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:56:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1530291383.16379.6.camel@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <75090b06-fd6f-eeaa-4cb8-8373673c8a5d@linux.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2022 bytes --]
On Fri, 2018-06-29 at 09:39 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 07:29 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > The latter problem can be prevented in two ways. The first is to
> > always send a TLB shootdown IPI to CPUs in lazy TLB mode, while
> > the second one is to only send the TLB shootdown at page table
> > freeing time.
>
> I've read this a few times, and I keep having to remind myself why we
> "always send a TLB shootdown IPI to CPUs in lazy TLB mode". It's not
> strictly CPUs in lazy TLB mode, right? It's just the one that are in
> lazy TLB mode _and_ using the mm from which we are freeing page
> tables.
>
> If you revise these again, would it make sense to add a little blurb
> like:
>
> CPUs in lazy TLB mode are using the "wrong" page tables,
> generally from a process's mm while running true kernel code
> like the idle task. This is just as problematic when freeing
> page tables from that mm as a real non-lazy user of the page
> tables would be.
If we get to a v4, I will do that.
> > The second should result in fewer IPIs, since operationgs like
> > mprotect and madvise are very common with some workloads, but
> > do not involve page table freeing. Also, on munmap, batching
> > of page table freeing covers much larger ranges of virtual
> > memory than the batching of unmapped user pages.
>
> Doesn't this also result in fewer IPIs because it *removes* the
> processor from the mm_cpumask(mm) and won't send IPIs to it any more?
> As it stood before, we'd IPI a lazy CPU over and over, but this way
> we
> just do it once, switch to another mm, and never touch for this mm
> again
> (unless that CPU becomes non-lazy and switches to that mm again).
With this patch series, we never remove a CPU from
the mm_cpumask(mm) while in lazy TLB mode, but we
also do not send TLB shootdowns too CPUs in lazy TLB
mode, unless we are freeing page tables - when that
happens, the CPU will remove itself from the mm_cpumask.
--
All Rights Reversed.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-29 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-29 14:29 [PATCH v3 0/7] x86,tlb,mm: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 1/7] mm: allocate mm_cpumask dynamically based on nr_cpu_ids Rik van Riel
2018-06-30 4:30 ` kbuild test robot
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 16:39 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-29 16:56 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 3/7] x86,mm: restructure switch_mm_irqs_off Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 16:49 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 4/7] x86,tlb: make lazy TLB mode lazier Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 17:05 ` Dave Hansen
2018-06-29 17:29 ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 5/7] x86,tlb: only send page table free TLB flush to lazy TLB CPUs Rik van Riel
2018-07-07 12:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-07-07 13:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2018-07-07 21:21 ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 6/7] x86,mm: always use lazy TLB mode Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 14:29 ` [PATCH 7/7] x86,switch_mm: skip atomic operations for init_mm Rik van Riel
2018-06-29 17:06 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] x86,tlb,mm: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Dave Hansen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-07-16 19:03 [PATCH v6 " Rik van Riel
2018-07-16 19:03 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time Rik van Riel
2018-08-16 1:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-08-16 5:31 ` Rik van Riel
2018-07-10 14:28 [PATCH v5 0/7] x86,tlb,mm: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Rik van Riel
2018-07-10 14:28 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time Rik van Riel
2018-07-06 21:56 [PATCH v4 0/7] x86,tlb,mm: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Rik van Riel
2018-07-06 21:56 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time Rik van Riel
2018-06-20 19:56 [PATCH 0/7] x86,tlb,mm: make lazy TLB mode even lazier Rik van Riel
2018-06-20 19:56 ` [PATCH 2/7] x86,tlb: leave lazy TLB mode at page table free time Rik van Riel
2018-06-21 0:23 ` Rik van Riel
2018-06-22 14:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-06-22 15:17 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1530291383.16379.6.camel@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.