From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: "Mikołaj Lenczewski" <miko.lenczewski@arm.com>
Cc: ryan.roberts@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
yang@os.amperecomputing.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, joro@8bytes.org, jean-philippe@linaro.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
james.morse@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, nicolinc@nvidia.com,
mshavit@google.com, jsnitsel@redhat.com, smostafa@google.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64/mm: Elide tlbi in contpte_convert() under BBML2
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:42:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0ff27dbb-401b-4793-be70-1ff9c8010e4a@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250303105539.GA74129@e133081.arm.com>
On 03.03.25 11:55, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:57:21AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03.03.25 10:49, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking the time to review.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:17:12AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 28.02.25 19:24, Mikołaj Lenczewski wrote:
>>>>> If we support bbml2 without conflict aborts, we can avoid the final
>>>>> flush and have hardware manage the tlb entries for us. Avoiding flushes
>>>>> is a win.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mikołaj Lenczewski <miko.lenczewski@arm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c | 3 ---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
>>>>> index 145530f706a9..77ed03b30b72 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
>>>>> @@ -72,9 +72,6 @@ static void contpte_convert(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>>> __flush_tlb_range(&vma, start_addr, addr, PAGE_SIZE, true, 3);
>>>>> __set_ptes(mm, start_addr, start_ptep, pte, CONT_PTES);
>>>>> -
>>>>> - if (system_supports_bbml2_noabort())
>>>>> - __flush_tlb_range(&vma, start_addr, addr, PAGE_SIZE, true, 3);
>>>>> }
>>>>> void __contpte_try_fold(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of not squashing this into #2? :)
>>>>
>>>> If this split was requested during earlier review, at least seeing patch #2
>>>> on its own confused me.
>>>
>>> This split is a holdover from an earlier patchset, where it was still
>>> unknown whether the removal of the second flush was permitted with
>>> BBML2. Partly this was due to us being worried about conflict aborts
>>> after the removal, and partly this was because the "delay" is a separate
>>> optimisation that we could apply even if it turned out the final patch
>>> was not architecturally sound.
>>>
>>> Now that we do not handle conflict aborts (preferring only systems that
>>> handle BBML2 without ever raising aborts), the first issue is not a
>>> problem. The reasoning behind the second patch is also a little bit
>>> outdated, but I can see the logical split between a tlbi reorder, and
>>> the removal of the tlbi. If this is truly redundant though, I would be
>>> happy to squash the two into a single patch.
>>
>> Thanks for the information.
>>
>> Does patch #2 (reordering the tlbi) have any benefit on its own? I read
>> "other threads will not see an invalid pagetable entry", but I am not sure
>> that is correct. A concurrent HW page table walker would still find the
>> invalid PTE? It's just a matter of TLB state.
>
> I think I understand what you mean. I agree that it is possible for a
> concurrent walk to see an invalid TLBI state, if it is on the same TLB
> that the repaint is happening on. For other TLBs, the flush has not yet
> propagated our invalidated PTEs (from `__ptep_get_and_clear()`) though?
What I am saying is: if there is no TLB entry yet, HW will walk the page
table to find no present PTE and trigger a fault.
> That invalidation will only be seen by other TLBs after the
> `__flush_tlb_range()`, so we should save a few faults because only
> "local" threads will ever see the invalid entry, as opposed to all
> threads that try to read our modified range?
So what you say is, that deferring the flush means that if there is
already a TLB entry, flushing deferred reduces the likelihood that a
page table walk is triggered that could find no present PTE:
consequently, reducing the likelihood that a page fault is triggered.
(I use the word likelihood, because I assume other action could result
in a TLB entry getting flushed in the meantime, such as TLB entry reuse)
Correct?
Or it is the case that I
> have misunderstood something basic here, or that I have misinterpreted
> what you have written?
No, that makes it clearer, thanks.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-03 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-28 18:24 [PATCH v2 0/4] Initial BBML2 support for contpte_convert() Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-02-28 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: Add BBM Level 2 cpu feature Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-02-28 21:16 ` Yang Shi
2025-03-01 1:29 ` Yang Shi
2025-03-01 2:45 ` Yang Shi
2025-03-03 9:40 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 9:40 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 19:55 ` Yang Shi
2025-02-28 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] arm64/mm: Delay tlbi in contpte_convert() under BBML2 Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-02-28 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] arm64/mm: Elide " Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 9:17 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-03 9:49 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 9:57 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-03-03 10:55 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 11:42 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2025-03-03 11:52 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-02-28 18:24 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] iommu/arm: Add BBM Level 2 smmu feature Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-02-28 19:32 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-03 8:49 ` Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
2025-03-03 10:31 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 16:52 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-03 19:03 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-04 14:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-04 16:02 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-04 16:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-03-11 14:37 ` Robin Murphy
2025-03-01 1:32 ` Yang Shi
2025-03-03 10:17 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-03 10:32 ` Mikołaj Lenczewski
2025-03-03 19:56 ` Yang Shi
2025-03-11 10:17 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2025-03-11 10:58 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-11 12:16 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2025-03-11 13:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-03-03 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] Initial BBML2 support for contpte_convert() David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0ff27dbb-401b-4793-be70-1ff9c8010e4a@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=iommu@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=jean-philippe@linaro.org \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=jsnitsel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=miko.lenczewski@arm.com \
--cc=mshavit@google.com \
--cc=nicolinc@nvidia.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=smostafa@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox