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 1C3D7C6FD18 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q1dvj4Sr6z3h3M for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:33:21 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=JesiWwm8; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=JesiWwm8; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com (client-ip=170.10.129.124; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com; envelope-from=mtosatti@redhat.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=JesiWwm8; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=JesiWwm8; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 4Q1db42Dpbz3g6B for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:18:54 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1681903132; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yk2MXIcMGsqVm4bpeyyiPIAlxJgEs4vB5F4slfGpqbs=; b=JesiWwm86MoxvlN91FhLby7U2FlJ3qCn6md9macjXzJyRrzLtepA+3zDhQ6lNGiYuYNCRV 7o3tZ2X4x/oXPGtRVGnuKNtlqEyUxmY5KCMwh1VMQ27tUGYbEUjC++ydsXLjDEnyt0RSIO fGsZUt/RWTt7LMxf/xFga+/IhsHXXWU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1681903132; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yk2MXIcMGsqVm4bpeyyiPIAlxJgEs4vB5F4slfGpqbs=; b=JesiWwm86MoxvlN91FhLby7U2FlJ3qCn6md9macjXzJyRrzLtepA+3zDhQ6lNGiYuYNCRV 7o3tZ2X4x/oXPGtRVGnuKNtlqEyUxmY5KCMwh1VMQ27tUGYbEUjC++ydsXLjDEnyt0RSIO fGsZUt/RWTt7LMxf/xFga+/IhsHXXWU= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-169-jmHSCGkANleXDaHYHeFrNA-1; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:18:51 -0400 X-MC-Unique: jmHSCGkANleXDaHYHeFrNA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59BDC101A54F; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:18:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tpad.localdomain (ovpn-112-2.gru2.redhat.com [10.97.112.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75C83492B05; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 11:18:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tpad.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0514401344A1; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:01:41 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 08:01:41 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp_sync IPI only to CPUs in kernel mode Message-ID: References: <20230404134224.137038-1-ypodemsk@redhat.com> <20230404134224.137038-4-ypodemsk@redhat.com> <20230405195457.GC365912@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20230406133206.GN386572@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230406133206.GN386572@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.9 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: geert+renesas@glider.be, tony@atomide.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, Yair Podemsky , sebastian.reichel@collabora.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, hpa@zytor.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, agordeev@linux.ibm.com, will@kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, vschneid@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, paulmck@kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, mingo@redhat.com, samitolvanen@google.com, borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org, gor@linux.ibm.com, Frederic Weisbecker , npiggin@gmail.com, rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk, bp@alien8.de, nick.hawkins@hpe.com, tglx@linutronix.de, jpoimboe@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, alougovs@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juerg.haefliger@canonical.com, svens@linux.ibm.com, dhildenb@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@da vemloft.net Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 03:32:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 09:49:22AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > > > 2) Depends on the application and the definition of "occasional". > > > > > > > > For certain types of applications (for example PLC software or > > > > RAN processing), upon occurrence of an event, it is necessary to > > > > complete a certain task in a maximum amount of time (deadline). > > > > > > If the application is properly NOHZ_FULL and never does a kernel entry, > > > it will never get that IPI. If it is a pile of shit and does kernel > > > entries while it pretends to be NOHZ_FULL it gets to keep the pieces and > > > no amount of crying will get me to care. > > > > I suppose its common practice to use certain system calls in latency > > sensitive applications, for example nanosleep. Some examples: > > > > 1) cyclictest (nanosleep) > > cyclictest is not a NOHZ_FULL application, if you tihnk it is, you're > deluded. On the field (what end-users do on production): cyclictest runs on NOHZ_FULL cores. PLC type programs run on NOHZ_FULL cores. So accordingly to physical reality i observe, i am not deluded. > > 2) PLC programs (nanosleep) > > What's a PLC? Programmable Logic Circuit? Programmable logic controller. > > A system call does not necessarily have to take locks, does it ? > > This all is unrelated to locks OK. > > Or even if application does system calls, but runs under a VM, > > then you are requiring it to never VM-exit. > > That seems to be a goal for performance anyway. Not sure what you mean. > > This reduces the flexibility of developing such applications. > > Yeah, that's the cards you're dealt, deal with it. This is not what happens on the field.