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 lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 0751AECAAA1 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4N1MN71Mqwz3c7B for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 05:37:59 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bytedance-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bytedance-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=Mki3cqNy; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=bytedance.com (client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::433; helo=mail-wr1-x433.google.com; envelope-from=punit.agrawal@bytedance.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bytedance-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bytedance-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=Mki3cqNy; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wr1-x433.google.com (mail-wr1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) (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 4N1MM20rGHz30NS for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 05:36:59 +1100 (AEDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x433.google.com with SMTP id h9so17257343wrt.0 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bytedance-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sNqF1x5hFExPPQ1p8H8ZfUJkMN/LytiJFdG0FgSo0Yc=; b=Mki3cqNyLb6i/7bDr8xmcRoAI7MKB8Ubep7MvVdCAwvVAv/rvYzaNntbYk7evNSPOx iZSZj+1kqC7UTT9hY3p9QxXxVMZ7rRgmk+9DY9r7FhExeFFt1VDbTR9aAf2X+JrZ0tNY Tr/US88lDzmERESqdII2j74Xqtc13Nxr3puP6+gFIxszTZcUEQgT950jsRCvi08bhiKR jD8ZqkKvxW/CqsLaBVsSxX0va4onlR2A9GDsiypQf+pm99b/Y+UG3WiItOZJ+Li8JVOO +Y1i4xOLivYeF+DP4zPejP0GtpVAQoKKHaj+oeUXTWFGo9wGo7aYYFoFnonbrsyfX2Yj K6HQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:in-reply-to:date:references :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=sNqF1x5hFExPPQ1p8H8ZfUJkMN/LytiJFdG0FgSo0Yc=; b=NjSrtcvOU43Rvmy5x2QlgzG/Dhw6hHQijvFU0b7GQ6T52HcJbZGsKKJgNIdReeJWrN CArS6TPcFMNKyxxF03klHlAvizAzxi5U4WA6677Nl4WwIvRnjHCtVZTJGOf/ooJGga2Q 3Vw0NZklXN1g/j1IFbZqyMvcOGjqzhdXcnn3ErKDihiALKYxQ3pB552TxOV+o4cFli1V 8QuZw/7jcu1B9WM06goBdNDCeL2Qycfi805307nGzROVXzqrTn1GG15epqzXJlxJm4vu E3/YTj67sDXNjfTMaxiuHqFCehmr8HdjOXBB1Dd9xLzJr5KblZDL4KIQKR4VJzUn5ll4 Uhvg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2p0PzUaL7LetQFpeuPUmyGhRU/gP4wusdEad5uRwFFoC2HvwAG sVXkR4rAbTFzizREkp1TUyvpog== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6L4c0mU3rV7kcQN/uxBci0PgFY6LkbseXn4PqZrB/kcujXoiDFpfGo/UsDapmtxjnBCDkTjg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:584e:0:b0:236:6f0f:9d8 with SMTP id i14-20020a5d584e000000b002366f0f09d8mr9048660wrf.701.1667241412938; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([95.148.15.66]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b20-20020a05600c151400b003b3307fb98fsm7781722wmg.24.2022.10.31.11.36.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:36:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown during page reclamation 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> <87bkpw5bzm.fsf@stealth> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:36:51 +0000 In-Reply-To: (Barry Song's message of "Sat, 29 Oct 2022 10:40:11 +1300") Message-ID: <87zgdb4z7g.fsf@stealth> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Anshuman Khandual , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, yangyicong@hisilicon.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Nadav Amit , guojian@oppo.com, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, will@kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, zhangshiming@oppo.com, lipeifeng@oppo.com, corbet@lwn.net, x86@kernel.org, Mel Gorman , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, realmz6@gmail.com, Barry Song , openrisc@lists.librecores.org, darren@os.amperecomputing.com, Punit Agrawal , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, xhao@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, huzhanyuan@oppo.com, Yicong Yang , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 2:11 AM Punit Agrawal > wrote: >> >> Yicong Yang writes: >> >> > 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. >> >> Yeah, I also wondered about this. >> >> I was able to test on a 6-core RK3399 based system - there the >> ptep_clear_flush() was only 0.10% of the overall execution time. The >> hardware seems to do a pretty good job of keeping the TLB flushing >> overhead low. I found a problem with my measurements (missing volatile). Correcting that increased the overhead somewhat - more below. > RK3399 has Dual-core ARM Cortex-A72 MPCore processor and > Quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 MPCore processor. you are probably > going to see different overhead of ptep_clear_flush() when you > bind the micro-benchmark on different cores. Indeed - binding the code on the A53 shows half the overhead from ptep_clear_flush() compared to the A72. On the A53 - $ perf report --stdio -i perf.vanilla.a53.data | grep ptep_clear_flush 0.63% pageout [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush On the A72 $ perf report --stdio -i perf.vanilla.a72.data | grep ptep_clear_flush 1.34% pageout [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush [...]