From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C49CFA373D for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:21:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:CC:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=hhLPkoCBOT0HCSjOwEFUB5fD/2omSKLUSDcN3mXzT4I=; b=ERoOPOz2hB7/p1cS2f9JMDxAqS pO22mXyMCkqM/1AQxAc9cChnLE3Q2AAalv6BzvbilHI9lZ5GjlRy/YfiVdrkjj7Qa4OPfohA1Jdqk p4OCH4Il++xJ1t8NtEspW/Ls/WdjEY/jlCxzCdEGRuJHLVikePItnS6Uc9CMWx4CkTG3+QzbcVcPh lp4ne6GClnGAORn43EUSuhR1m7NYheHadi3mAGLjmCUh4urUSfOO01pumZOywT4eqfEuNE+gQcs7n gBEVPe97rlwgPYWBR4rECjDrqOIgpIJ38Ea7KhitPlLunBKNjvkZD5USz2ecLFiaQEFYk3zKuufBc rrSMCqYg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ooE2x-00FMwp-I0; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:31 +0000 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.189]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ooE2t-00FMuI-So; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 01:20:29 +0000 Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.55]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Mz4Qm4hLyzJnNK; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:17:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.102.169] (10.67.102.169) by canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.31; Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:20:08 +0800 CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Barry Song , Nadav Amit , Mel Gorman , , , , Anshuman Khandual Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown during page reclamation To: Punit Agrawal , Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> References: <20220921084302.43631-1-yangyicong@huawei.com> <20220921084302.43631-3-yangyicong@huawei.com> <168eac93-a6ee-0b2e-12bb-4222eff24561@arm.com> <8e391962-4e3a-5a56-64b4-78e8637e3b8c@huawei.com> <87o7tx5oyx.fsf@stealth> From: Yicong Yang Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 09:20:08 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o7tx5oyx.fsf@stealth> X-Originating-IP: [10.67.102.169] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20221027_182028_289556_4AC64FA1 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 20.69 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 2022/10/27 22:19, Punit Agrawal wrote: > > [ Apologies for chiming in late in the conversation ] > > Anshuman Khandual writes: > >> On 9/28/22 05:53, Barry Song wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:15 PM Yicong Yang wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2022/9/27 14:16, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> On 9/21/22 14:13, Yicong Yang wrote: >>>>>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + /* for small systems with small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */ >>>>>> + if (num_online_cpus() <= 4) >>>>> >>>>> It would be great to have some more inputs from others, whether 4 (which should >>>>> to be codified into a macro e.g ARM64_NR_CPU_DEFERRED_TLB, or something similar) >>>>> is optimal for an wide range of arm64 platforms. >>>>> >>> >>> I have tested it on a 4-cpus and 8-cpus machine. but i have no machine >>> with 5,6,7 >>> cores. >>> I saw improvement on 8-cpus machines and I found 4-cpus machines don't need >>> this patch. >>> >>> so it seems safe to have >>> if (num_online_cpus() < 8) >>> >>>> >>>> Do you prefer this macro to be static or make it configurable through kconfig then >>>> different platforms can make choice based on their own situations? It maybe hard to >>>> test on all the arm64 platforms. >>> >>> Maybe we can have this default enabled on machines with 8 and more cpus and >>> provide a tlbflush_batched = on or off to allow users enable or >>> disable it according >>> to their hardware and products. Similar example: rodata=on or off. >> >> No, sounds bit excessive. Kernel command line options should not be added >> for every possible run time switch options. >> >>> >>> Hi Anshuman, Will, Catalin, Andrew, >>> what do you think about this approach? >>> >>> BTW, haoxin mentioned another important user scenarios for tlb bach on arm64: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/393d6318-aa38-01ed-6ad8-f9eac89bf0fc@linux.alibaba.com/ >>> >>> I do believe we need it based on the expensive cost of tlb shootdown in arm64 >>> even by hardware broadcast. >> >> Alright, for now could we enable ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH selectively >> with CONFIG_EXPERT and for num_online_cpus() > 8 ? > > When running the test program in the commit in a VM, I saw benefits from > the patches at all sizes from 2, 4, 8, 32 vcpus. On the test machine, > ptep_clear_flush() went from ~1% in the unpatched version to not showing > up. > Maybe you're booting VM on a server with more than 32 cores and Barry tested on his 4 CPUs embedded platform. I guess a 4 CPU VM is not fully equivalent to a 4 CPU real machine as the tbli and dsb in the VM may influence the host as well. > Yicong mentioned that he didn't see any benefit for <= 4 CPUs but is > there any overhead? I am wondering what are the downsides of enabling > the config by default. > > Thanks, > Punit > . > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel