From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-178.mta0.migadu.com (out-178.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CB3816C68F for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 17:38:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725039526; cv=none; b=J8NMEGMzzRTetcvU4SePSmiNd0Z9pTLrBHmdcGCFsY9MH4vNrPeWiJSbDQx/CHU3zjqFLKqG6Hea4H/tMsZciwd/Svufm+Kr0qU+17oHpA/boZgsBO7d1JptIHkugj7NAg40V1nIaZanSdNNURAVqYzkYdGaN+1WbQ/1W47gCO0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725039526; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lge5FERVK6kb/J6uzbFQGyu7nF5jed3VoSj6+WRGVyA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PLnJ8KsnBSDaEyEjopTshcDIusG6qh312QPCpNuax78dmEsFwt7cohnKRLBnH3nt26w8/Aza7RVdh4f/lSeA1EkaY1zzD972nPB0Jf5HSsAWAG1kPcfadz4PTKnCQqr6RpNeR2s5zq4C78QqK7e2hXMUYPXSncv9w7mWjv9kH6Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=VxiwD7GQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.178 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="VxiwD7GQ" Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 10:38:33 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1725039522; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=d6L+KI/2jSnOcw8BblWMkOB9gllIb6gCZOsYWN7xgAE=; b=VxiwD7GQ9XhGMOI+EnUY1hbVf1hzgYZ5y62ghG8H7NgsCgvXK4O4uAcphI2s+QGcMzw68d UaCmBNo7L8WOVI0SB8xsTf4TWWtvlNsKEr9IyKBJdR3cffMLp9Ra0WD2saR02EGGsiHuqM Gm5puFHjnuYd9wcQ2Fo4PIH+Gvr10zY= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Oliver Upton To: David Matlack Cc: James Houghton , Yu Zhao , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Morton , Paolo Bonzini , Ankit Agrawal , Axel Rasmussen , Catalin Marinas , David Rientjes , James Morse , Jason Gunthorpe , Jonathan Corbet , Marc Zyngier , Raghavendra Rao Ananta , Ryan Roberts , Shaoqin Huang , Suzuki K Poulose , Wei Xu , Will Deacon , Zenghui Yu , kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/11] KVM: arm64: Relax locking for kvm_test_age_gfn and kvm_age_gfn Message-ID: References: <20240724011037.3671523-1-jthoughton@google.com> <20240724011037.3671523-4-jthoughton@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Hey David, On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 08:33:59AM -0700, David Matlack wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 5:48 PM Oliver Upton wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 05:33:00PM -0700, James Houghton wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 1:42 PM Oliver Upton wrote: > > > > Asking since you had a setup / data earlier on when you were carrying > > > > the series. Hopefully with supportive data we can get arm64 to opt-in > > > > to HAVE_KVM_MMU_NOTIFIER_YOUNG_FAST_ONLY as well. > > > > > > I'll keep trying some other approaches I can take for getting similar > > > testing that Yu had; it is somewhat difficult for me to reproduce > > > those tests (and it really shouldn't be.... sorry). > > > > No need to apologize. Getting good test hardware for arm64 is a complete > > chore. Sure would love a functional workstation with cores from this > > decade... > > > > > I think it makes most sense for me to drop the arm64 patch for now and > > > re-propose it (or something stronger) alongside enabling aging. Does > > > that sound ok? > > > > I'm a bit disappointed that we haven't gotten forward progress on the > > arm64 patches, but I also recognize this is the direction of travel as > > the x86 patches are shaping up. > > > > So yeah, I'm OK with it, but I'd love to get the arm64 side sorted out > > soon while the context is still fresh. > > Converting the aging notifiers to holding mmu_lock for read seems like > a pure win and minimal churn. Can we keep that patch in v7 (which > depends on the lockless notifier refactor, i.e. is not completely > stand-alone)? We can revisit enabling MGLRU on arm64 in a subsequent > series. Even though the churn is minimal in LOC, locking changes are significant. If one thing has become clear, there are some strong opinions about arm64 participating in MGLRU w/ the read lock. So it is almost guaranteed that these read lock changes will eventually get thrown out in favor of an RCU-protected walker. Then we're stuck with potentially 3 flavors of locking in kernels that people actually use, and dealing with breakage that only affects that intermediate step is gonna be annoying. -- Thanks, Oliver