All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PCID and TLB flushes (was: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:56:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5540101D.7020800@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUYc0W49-CVFpsj33CQx0N_ssaQeree3S7Zh3aisr3kNw@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/28/2015 06:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/28/2015 06:15 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:42:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> At some point, I'd like to implement PCID on x86 (if no one beats me
>>>> to it, and this is a low priority for me), which will allow us to skip
>>>> expensive TLB flushes while context switching.  I have no idea whether
>>>> ARM can do something similar.
>>>
>>> I talked with Dave about implementing PCID and he thinks that it will be
>>> net loss. TLB entries will live longer and it means we would need to trigger
>>> more IPIs to flash them out when we have to. Cost of IPIs will be higher
>>> than benifit from hot TLB after context switch.
>>
>> I suspect that may depend on how you do the shootdown.
>>
>> If, when receiving a TLB shootdown for a non-current PCID, we just flush
>> all the entries for that PCID and remove the CPU from the mm's
>> cpu_vm_mask_var, we will never receive more than one shootdown IPI for
>> a non-current mm, but we will still get the benefits of TLB longevity
>> when dealing with eg. pipe workloads where tasks take turns running on
>> the same CPU.
> 
> I had a totally different implementation idea in mind.  It goes
> something like this:
> 
> For each CPU, we allocate a fixed number of PCIDs, e.g. 0-7.  We have
> a per-cpu array of the mm [1] that owns each PCID.  On context switch,
> we look up the new mm in the array and, if there's a PCID mapped, we
> switch cr3 and select that PCID.  If there is no PCID mapped, we
> choose one (LRU?  clock replacement?), switch cr3 and select and
> invalidate that PCID.
> 
> When it's time to invalidate a TLB entry on an mm that's active
> remotely, we really don't want to send an IPI to a CPU that doesn't
> actually have that mm active.  Instead we bump some kind of generation
> counter in the mm_struct that will cause the next switch to that mm
> not to match the PCID list.  To keep this working, I think we also
> need to update the per-cpu PCID list with our generation counter
> either when we context switch out or when we process a TLB shootdown
> IPI.

If we do that, we can also get rid of TLB shootdowns for
idle CPUs in lazy TLB mode.

Very nice, if the details work out.

-- 
All rights reversed

--
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: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PCID and TLB flushes (was: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:56:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5540101D.7020800@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUYc0W49-CVFpsj33CQx0N_ssaQeree3S7Zh3aisr3kNw@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/28/2015 06:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/28/2015 06:15 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 01:42:10PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> At some point, I'd like to implement PCID on x86 (if no one beats me
>>>> to it, and this is a low priority for me), which will allow us to skip
>>>> expensive TLB flushes while context switching.  I have no idea whether
>>>> ARM can do something similar.
>>>
>>> I talked with Dave about implementing PCID and he thinks that it will be
>>> net loss. TLB entries will live longer and it means we would need to trigger
>>> more IPIs to flash them out when we have to. Cost of IPIs will be higher
>>> than benifit from hot TLB after context switch.
>>
>> I suspect that may depend on how you do the shootdown.
>>
>> If, when receiving a TLB shootdown for a non-current PCID, we just flush
>> all the entries for that PCID and remove the CPU from the mm's
>> cpu_vm_mask_var, we will never receive more than one shootdown IPI for
>> a non-current mm, but we will still get the benefits of TLB longevity
>> when dealing with eg. pipe workloads where tasks take turns running on
>> the same CPU.
> 
> I had a totally different implementation idea in mind.  It goes
> something like this:
> 
> For each CPU, we allocate a fixed number of PCIDs, e.g. 0-7.  We have
> a per-cpu array of the mm [1] that owns each PCID.  On context switch,
> we look up the new mm in the array and, if there's a PCID mapped, we
> switch cr3 and select that PCID.  If there is no PCID mapped, we
> choose one (LRU?  clock replacement?), switch cr3 and select and
> invalidate that PCID.
> 
> When it's time to invalidate a TLB entry on an mm that's active
> remotely, we really don't want to send an IPI to a CPU that doesn't
> actually have that mm active.  Instead we bump some kind of generation
> counter in the mm_struct that will cause the next switch to that mm
> not to match the PCID list.  To keep this working, I think we also
> need to update the per-cpu PCID list with our generation counter
> either when we context switch out or when we process a TLB shootdown
> IPI.

If we do that, we can also get rid of TLB shootdowns for
idle CPUs in lazy TLB mode.

Very nice, if the details work out.

-- 
All rights reversed

  reply	other threads:[~2015-04-28 22:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-28 22:15 PCID and TLB flushes (was: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1) Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-04-28 22:15 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-04-28 22:38 ` Dave Hansen
2015-04-28 22:38   ` Dave Hansen
2015-04-28 22:41 ` Rik van Riel
2015-04-28 22:41   ` Rik van Riel
2015-04-28 22:54   ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 22:54     ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 22:56     ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2015-04-28 22:56       ` Rik van Riel
2015-04-28 23:01       ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 23:01         ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 23:19         ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:19           ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:16     ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:16       ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:23       ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 23:23         ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 23:38         ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:38           ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 23:49           ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 23:49             ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-04-28 22:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-28 22:56   ` 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=5540101D.7020800@redhat.com \
    --to=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --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.