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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19DC0C433E3 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1C3820773 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="R+6LRuLZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C1C3820773 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B58lS0Hp3zDqNf for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:50:12 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::542; helo=mail-pg1-x542.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=R+6LRuLZ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pg1-x542.google.com (mail-pg1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::542]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B58jP21LgzDqMp for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:48:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x542.google.com with SMTP id e18so6270236pgn.7 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:48:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INPs3nxni2V4l7Wi5FNDIFPFwYguU/xf1qgvb0BuhC4=; b=R+6LRuLZbvncOfmOwYY5q8IVDwZiV+RDPEu6DkwQ7DghW24zrjlhrUTVAvXZR3UUHH mkBdeBPq/GcwQRrBAUjLvieWEIgcEhNfLRhInWKe9n46bjAtdCWUhOcKDGBJWiwjkxgR 6Rj9VkbiyOt3ADuG2ZXGxNQKLMZBBmZCoDqbFodM2xjHs/iLWVOY/Bl5KLgNhYdeleLA edC+A3d9UvHuGkddJK37cHRQypGFRiX+ha42c3w/yAXtJr1q/VMTuk7Vb7ki7dk5K3bW ZS52GW3lsY3/2uK3rwUG7dp8gk5XfTe7av83x249Xfkf9EShHRcn4+fBVSnTnIstdvKZ 5a9w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=INPs3nxni2V4l7Wi5FNDIFPFwYguU/xf1qgvb0BuhC4=; b=EWt2p0A5tvbqpLuEsCLWYBw+bibcThuJPLfx2DRe9zXWK1+PDNndvTvpFjRBEjJnyJ e4WZLmt4Wu6DGQr5AIJvTgMcyxojcovSzchxFTI+SFr2cdk9nu32+DtoxUCL7AXKOpo+ kBZ0XwDu3iTquVYL2RBRoDOQODxTFrZzWt7Vs3N2882nSpqkHDRKe0yQ9O7z8Fv44/QO eQr0qs0ZDpOqRZndaMVEOVf3RCzTZNn9uux6KDs8sV+PErO2HnWprCPJSe54CRLeBwiV AYcMwTZYkXyhm3JE+VO3uJ6BFcEAayKNovckQWh85wIE/y2GKMkICyaOxNoCd4N/cbOw 7w0g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530P0GAmCbMdO67gH6hCrmc3M2lpUjz9qrqiBnLqtYgqkWk/5nFa 0lWNR9c6NtTptI9T/GrzxCcFuV7t X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzYE/gbgNRIvd8T1nEKwOmWyQ0D6wBLrY+CaPnFOU0pgGH0kYtLwOHfmaSiihyfPeLfiiMRg== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8ac3:: with SMTP id b3mr723937pfd.45.1594658901764; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (110-174-173-27.tpgi.com.au. [110.174.173.27]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m68sm121909pje.24.2020.07.13.09.48.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:48:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 02:48:15 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/7] lazy tlb: shoot lazies, a non-refcounting lazy tlb option To: Andy Lutomirski References: <20200710015646.2020871-1-npiggin@gmail.com> <20200710015646.2020871-8-npiggin@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1594658283.qabzoxga67.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch , Arnd Bergmann , Peter Zijlstra , X86 ML , LKML , Linux-MM , Mathieu Desnoyers , linuxppc-dev Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Andy Lutomirski's message of July 14, 2020 1:59 am: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 6:57 PM Nicholas Piggin 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. >> >> On a 16-socket 192-core POWER8 system, a context switching benchmark >> with as many software threads as CPUs (so each switch will go in and >> out of idle), upstream can achieve a rate of about 1 million context >> switches per second. After this patch it goes up to 118 million. >> >=20 > I read the patch a couple of times, and I have a suggestion that could > be nonsense. You are, effectively, using mm_cpumask() as a sort of > refcount. You're saying "hey, this mm has no more references, but it > still has nonempty mm_cpumask(), so let's send an IPI and shoot down > those references too." I'm wondering whether you actually need the > IPI. What if, instead, you actually treated mm_cpumask as a refcount > for real? Roughly, in __mmdrop(), you would only free the page tables > if mm_cpumask() is empty. And, in the code that removes a CPU from > mm_cpumask(), you would check if mm_users =3D=3D 0 and, if so, check if > you just removed the last bit from mm_cpumask and potentially free the > mm. >=20 > Getting the locking right here could be a bit tricky -- you need to > avoid two CPUs simultaneously exiting lazy TLB and thinking they > should free the mm, and you also need to avoid an mm with mm_users > hitting zero concurrently with the last remote CPU using it lazily > exiting lazy TLB. Perhaps this could be resolved by having mm_count > =3D=3D 1 mean "mm_cpumask() is might contain bits and, if so, it owns the > mm" and mm_count =3D=3D 0 meaning "now it's dead" and using some careful > cmpxchg or dec_return to make sure that only one CPU frees it. >=20 > Or maybe you'd need a lock or RCU for this, but the idea would be to > only ever take the lock after mm_users goes to zero. I don't think it's nonsense, it could be a good way to avoid IPIs. I haven't seen much problem here that made me too concerned about IPIs=20 yet, so I think the simple patch may be good enough to start with for powerpc. I'm looking at avoiding/reducing the IPIs by combining the unlazying with the exit TLB flush without doing anything fancy with ref counting, but we'll see. Thanks, Nick