All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: post-3.18 performance regression in TLB flushing code
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:53:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141217165310.GJ870@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyVxOw0upa=At6MmiNYEHzfPz4rE5bZUBCs9h4vKGh1iA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:28:23PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think there are a couple of things you could try to see if that 2% comes
> > back:
> >
> >   * Revert the patch and try the one here [1] instead (which only does part
> >     (1) of the above).
> >
> > -- or --
> >
> >   * Instead of adding the tlb->end check to tlb_flush_mmu, add it to
> >     tlb_flush_mmu_free
> 
> or just move the check back to tlb_flush_mmu() where it belongs.
> 
> I don't see why you moved it to "tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly()" in the first
> place, or why you'd now want to add it to tlb_flush_mmu_free().
> 
> Both of those helper functions have two callers:
> 
>  - tlb_flush_mmu(). Doing it here (instead of in the helper functions)
> is the right thing to do
> 
>  - the "force_flush" case: we know we have added at least one page to
> the TLB state so checking for it is pointless.
> 
> So I'm not seeing why you wanted to do it in tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(),
> and now add it to tlb_flush_mmu_free(). That seems bogus.

I guess I was being overly cautious in case tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly grows
additional users, but you're right.

> So why not just this trivial patch, to make the logic be the same it
> used to be (just using "end > 0" instead of the old "need_flush")?

Looks fine to me... Dave?

Will

> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index c3b9097251c5..6efe36a998ba 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -235,9 +235,6 @@ void tlb_gather_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
>  
>  static void tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  {
> -	if (!tlb->end)
> -		return;
> -
>  	tlb_flush(tlb);
>  	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
> @@ -259,6 +256,9 @@ static void tlb_flush_mmu_free(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  
>  void tlb_flush_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  {
> +	if (!tlb->end)
> +		return;
> +
>  	tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb);
>  	tlb_flush_mmu_free(tlb);
>  }

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: post-3.18 performance regression in TLB flushing code
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:53:10 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141217165310.GJ870@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFyVxOw0upa=At6MmiNYEHzfPz4rE5bZUBCs9h4vKGh1iA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:28:23PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think there are a couple of things you could try to see if that 2% comes
> > back:
> >
> >   * Revert the patch and try the one here [1] instead (which only does part
> >     (1) of the above).
> >
> > -- or --
> >
> >   * Instead of adding the tlb->end check to tlb_flush_mmu, add it to
> >     tlb_flush_mmu_free
> 
> or just move the check back to tlb_flush_mmu() where it belongs.
> 
> I don't see why you moved it to "tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly()" in the first
> place, or why you'd now want to add it to tlb_flush_mmu_free().
> 
> Both of those helper functions have two callers:
> 
>  - tlb_flush_mmu(). Doing it here (instead of in the helper functions)
> is the right thing to do
> 
>  - the "force_flush" case: we know we have added at least one page to
> the TLB state so checking for it is pointless.
> 
> So I'm not seeing why you wanted to do it in tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(),
> and now add it to tlb_flush_mmu_free(). That seems bogus.

I guess I was being overly cautious in case tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly grows
additional users, but you're right.

> So why not just this trivial patch, to make the logic be the same it
> used to be (just using "end > 0" instead of the old "need_flush")?

Looks fine to me... Dave?

Will

> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index c3b9097251c5..6efe36a998ba 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -235,9 +235,6 @@ void tlb_gather_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long
>  
>  static void tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  {
> -	if (!tlb->end)
> -		return;
> -
>  	tlb_flush(tlb);
>  	mmu_notifier_invalidate_range(tlb->mm, tlb->start, tlb->end);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE
> @@ -259,6 +256,9 @@ static void tlb_flush_mmu_free(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  
>  void tlb_flush_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb)
>  {
> +	if (!tlb->end)
> +		return;
> +
>  	tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(tlb);
>  	tlb_flush_mmu_free(tlb);
>  }


  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-17 16:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-16 21:36 post-3.18 performance regression in TLB flushing code Dave Hansen
2014-12-17 10:08 ` Will Deacon
2014-12-17 10:08   ` Will Deacon
2014-12-17 16:28   ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-17 16:53     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2014-12-17 16:53       ` Will Deacon
2014-12-17 18:52       ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-17 18:52         ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-17 19:58         ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-17 19:58           ` Linus Torvalds

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=20141217165310.GJ870@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=dave@sr71.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.