Re: [PATCH 6/8] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb option

[Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:50:38PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:28 PM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:31:51AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > other arch folk: there's some background here:
> > >
> > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALCETrVXUbe8LfNn-Qs+DzrOQaiw+sFUg1J047yByV31SaTOZw@mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 12:16 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 7:54 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:02 AM Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On big systems, the mm refcount can become highly contented when doing
> > > > > > a lot of context switching with threaded applications (particularly
> > > > > > switching between the idle thread and an application thread).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Abandoning lazy tlb slows switching down quite a bit in the important
> > > > > > user->idle->user cases, so so instead implement a non-refcounted scheme
> > > > > > that causes __mmdrop() to IPI all CPUs in the mm_cpumask and shoot down
> > > > > > any remaining lazy ones.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Shootdown IPIs are some concern, but they have not been observed to be
> > > > > > a big problem with this scheme (the powerpc implementation generated
> > > > > > 314 additional interrupts on a 144 CPU system during a kernel compile).
> > > > > > There are a number of strategies that could be employed to reduce IPIs
> > > > > > if they turn out to be a problem for some workload.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm still wondering whether we can do even better.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hold on a sec.. __mmput() unmaps VMAs, frees pagetables, and flushes
> > > > the TLB.  On x86, this will shoot down all lazies as long as even a
> > > > single pagetable was freed.  (Or at least it will if we don't have a
> > > > serious bug, but the code seems okay.  We'll hit pmd_free_tlb, which
> > > > sets tlb->freed_tables, which will trigger the IPI.)  So, on
> > > > architectures like x86, the shootdown approach should be free.  The
> > > > only way it ought to have any excess IPIs is if we have CPUs in
> > > > mm_cpumask() that don't need IPI to free pagetables, which could
> > > > happen on paravirt.
> > >
> > > Indeed, on x86, we do this:
> > >
> > > [   11.558844]  flush_tlb_mm_range.cold+0x18/0x1d
> > > [   11.559905]  tlb_finish_mmu+0x10e/0x1a0
> > > [   11.561068]  exit_mmap+0xc8/0x1a0
> > > [   11.561932]  mmput+0x29/0xd0
> > > [   11.562688]  do_exit+0x316/0xa90
> > > [   11.563588]  do_group_exit+0x34/0xb0
> > > [   11.564476]  __x64_sys_exit_group+0xf/0x10
> > > [   11.565512]  do_syscall_64+0x34/0x50
> > >
> > > and we have info->freed_tables set.
> > >
> > > What are the architectures that have large systems like?
> > >
> > > x86: we already zap lazies, so it should cost basically nothing to do
> > > a little loop at the end of __mmput() to make sure that no lazies are
> > > left.  If we care about paravirt performance, we could implement one
> > > of the optimizations I mentioned above to fix up the refcounts instead
> > > of sending an IPI to any remaining lazies.
> > >
> > > arm64: AFAICT arm64's flush uses magic arm64 hardware support for
> > > remote flushes, so any lazy mm references will still exist after
> > > exit_mmap().  (arm64 uses lazy TLB, right?)  So this is kind of like
> > > the x86 paravirt case.  Are there large enough arm64 systems that any
> > > of this matters?
> >
> > Yes, there are large arm64 systems where performance of TLB invalidation
> > matters, but they're either niche (supercomputers) or not readily available
> > (NUMA boxes).
> >
> > But anyway, we blow away the TLB for everybody in tlb_finish_mmu() after
> > freeing the page-tables. We have an optimisation to avoid flushing if
> > we're just unmapping leaf entries when the mm is going away, but we don't
> > have a choice once we get to actually reclaiming the page-tables.
> >
> > One thing I probably should mention, though, is that we don't maintain
> > mm_cpumask() because we're not able to benefit from it and the atomic
> > update is a waste of time.
> 
> Do you do anything special for lazy TLB or do you just use the generic
> code?  (i.e. where do your user pagetables point when you go from a
> user task to idle or to a kernel thread?)

We don't do anything special (there's something funny with the PAN emulation
but you can ignore that); the page-table just points wherever it did before
for userspace. Switching explicitly to the init_mm, however, causes us to
unmap userspace entirely.

Since we have ASIDs, switch_mm() generally doesn't have to care about the
TLBs at all.

> Do you end up with all cpus set in mm_cpumask or can you have the mm
> loaded on a CPU that isn't in mm_cpumask?

I think the mask is always zero (we never set anything in there).

Will