[PATCH 1/1] mm/mmu_gather: replace IPI with synchronize_rcu() when batch allocation fails

[PATCH 1/1] mm/mmu_gather: replace IPI with synchronize_rcu() when batch allocation fails

[Lance Yang]

From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>

When freeing page tables, we try to batch them. If batch allocation fails
(GFP_NOWAIT), __tlb_remove_table_one() immediately frees the one without
batching.

On !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM, the fallback sends an IPI to all CPUs via
tlb_remove_table_sync_one(). It disrupts all CPUs even when only a single
process is unmapping memory. IPI broadcast was reported to hurt RT
workloads[1].

tlb_remove_table_sync_one() synchronizes with lockless page-table walkers
(e.g. GUP-fast) that rely on IRQ disabling. These walkers use
local_irq_disable(), which is also an RCU read-side critical section.
synchronize_rcu() waits for all such sections to complete, providing the
same guarantee as IPI but without disrupting all CPUs.

Since batch allocation already failed, we are in a way slow path, so
replacing the IPI with synchronize_rcu() is fine.

We are in process context (unmap_region, exit_mmap) with only mmap_lock
held, a sleeping lock. synchronize_rcu() will catch any invalid context
via might_sleep().

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1b27a3fa-359a-43d0-bdeb-c31341749367@kernel.org/

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260202150957.GD1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/dfdfeac9-5cd5-46fc-a5c1-9ccf9bd3502a@intel.com/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/bc489455-bb18-44dc-8518-ae75abda6bec@kernel.org/
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
---
 mm/mmu_gather.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
index fe5b6a031717..df670c219260 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
@@ -339,7 +339,8 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
 #else
 static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
 {
-	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE))
+		synchronize_rcu();
 	__tlb_remove_table(table);
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM */
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/mmu_gather: replace IPI with synchronize_rcu() when batch allocation fails

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 2/23/26 04:36, Lance Yang wrote:
> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
> 
> When freeing page tables, we try to batch them. If batch allocation fails
> (GFP_NOWAIT), __tlb_remove_table_one() immediately frees the one without
> batching.
> 
> On !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM, the fallback sends an IPI to all CPUs via
> tlb_remove_table_sync_one(). It disrupts all CPUs even when only a single
> process is unmapping memory. IPI broadcast was reported to hurt RT
> workloads[1].
> 
> tlb_remove_table_sync_one() synchronizes with lockless page-table walkers
> (e.g. GUP-fast) that rely on IRQ disabling. These walkers use
> local_irq_disable(), which is also an RCU read-side critical section.
> synchronize_rcu() waits for all such sections to complete, providing the
> same guarantee as IPI but without disrupting all CPUs.
> 
> Since batch allocation already failed, we are in a way slow path, so
> replacing the IPI with synchronize_rcu() is fine.
> 
> We are in process context (unmap_region, exit_mmap) with only mmap_lock
> held, a sleeping lock. synchronize_rcu() will catch any invalid context
> via might_sleep().
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1b27a3fa-359a-43d0-bdeb-c31341749367@kernel.org/
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260202150957.GD1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/dfdfeac9-5cd5-46fc-a5c1-9ccf9bd3502a@intel.com/
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/bc489455-bb18-44dc-8518-ae75abda6bec@kernel.org/
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>

I think it was primarily Peter and Dave suggesting that :)

> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
> ---
>   mm/mmu_gather.c | 3 ++-
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> index fe5b6a031717..df670c219260 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> @@ -339,7 +339,8 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>   #else
>   static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>   {
> -	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE))
> +		synchronize_rcu();

That should work.

Reading all the comments for tlb_remove_table_smp_sync(), I wonder 
whether we should wrap that in a tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu() function, 
with a proper kerneldoc for the CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE variant 
where we discuss how this relates to tlb_remove_table_sync_one (and 
tlb_remove_table_smp_sync() .

-- 
Cheers,

David

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/mmu_gather: replace IPI with synchronize_rcu() when batch allocation fails

[Lance Yang]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:29:56AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>On 2/23/26 04:36, Lance Yang wrote:
>> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>> 
>> When freeing page tables, we try to batch them. If batch allocation fails
>> (GFP_NOWAIT), __tlb_remove_table_one() immediately frees the one without
>> batching.
>> 
>> On !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM, the fallback sends an IPI to all CPUs via
>> tlb_remove_table_sync_one(). It disrupts all CPUs even when only a single
>> process is unmapping memory. IPI broadcast was reported to hurt RT
>> workloads[1].
>> 
>> tlb_remove_table_sync_one() synchronizes with lockless page-table walkers
>> (e.g. GUP-fast) that rely on IRQ disabling. These walkers use
>> local_irq_disable(), which is also an RCU read-side critical section.
>> synchronize_rcu() waits for all such sections to complete, providing the
>> same guarantee as IPI but without disrupting all CPUs.
>> 
>> Since batch allocation already failed, we are in a way slow path, so
>> replacing the IPI with synchronize_rcu() is fine.
>> 
>> We are in process context (unmap_region, exit_mmap) with only mmap_lock
>> held, a sleeping lock. synchronize_rcu() will catch any invalid context
>> via might_sleep().
>> 
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1b27a3fa-359a-43d0-bdeb-c31341749367@kernel.org/
>> 
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260202150957.GD1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/dfdfeac9-5cd5-46fc-a5c1-9ccf9bd3502a@intel.com/
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/bc489455-bb18-44dc-8518-ae75abda6bec@kernel.org/
>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
>
>I think it was primarily Peter and Dave suggesting that :)

:)

>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>> ---
>>   mm/mmu_gather.c | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>> index fe5b6a031717..df670c219260 100644
>> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>> @@ -339,7 +339,8 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>>   #else
>>   static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>>   {
>> -	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE))
>> +		synchronize_rcu();
>
>That should work.
>
>Reading all the comments for tlb_remove_table_smp_sync(), I wonder 
>whether we should wrap that in a tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu() function, 
>with a proper kerneldoc for the CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE variant 
>where we discuss how this relates to tlb_remove_table_sync_one (and 
>tlb_remove_table_smp_sync() .

Good point! That would be cleaner and better ;)

How about the following:

---8<---
diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
index fe5b6a031717..ea5503d3e650 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
@@ -296,6 +296,24 @@ static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
 	call_rcu(&batch->rcu, tlb_remove_table_rcu);
 }

+/**
+ * tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu() - synchronize with software page-table walkers
+ *
+ * Like tlb_remove_table_sync_one() but uses RCU grace period instead of IPI
+ * broadcast. Should be used in slow paths where sleeping is acceptable.
+ *
+ * Software/Lockless page-table walkers use local_irq_disable(), which is also
+ * an RCU read-side critical section. synchronize_rcu() waits for all such
+ * sections, providing the same guarantee as tlb_remove_table_sync_one() but
+ * without disrupting all CPUs with IPIs.
+ *
+ * Context: Can sleep/block. Cannot be called from any atomic context.
+ */
+static void tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu(void)
+{
+	synchronize_rcu();
+}
+
 #else /* !CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE */

 static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
@@ -303,6 +321,10 @@ static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
 	__tlb_remove_table_free(batch);
 }

+static void tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu(void)
+{
+}
+
 #endif /* CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE */

 /*
@@ -339,7 +361,7 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
 #else
 static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
 {
-	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
+	tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu();
 	__tlb_remove_table(table);
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM */
---

Thanks for the suggestion!
Lance

Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/mmu_gather: replace IPI with synchronize_rcu() when batch allocation fails

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 2/23/26 13:58, Lance Yang wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 10:29:56AM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 2/23/26 04:36, Lance Yang wrote:
>>> From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>>
>>> When freeing page tables, we try to batch them. If batch allocation fails
>>> (GFP_NOWAIT), __tlb_remove_table_one() immediately frees the one without
>>> batching.
>>>
>>> On !CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM, the fallback sends an IPI to all CPUs via
>>> tlb_remove_table_sync_one(). It disrupts all CPUs even when only a single
>>> process is unmapping memory. IPI broadcast was reported to hurt RT
>>> workloads[1].
>>>
>>> tlb_remove_table_sync_one() synchronizes with lockless page-table walkers
>>> (e.g. GUP-fast) that rely on IRQ disabling. These walkers use
>>> local_irq_disable(), which is also an RCU read-side critical section.
>>> synchronize_rcu() waits for all such sections to complete, providing the
>>> same guarantee as IPI but without disrupting all CPUs.
>>>
>>> Since batch allocation already failed, we are in a way slow path, so
>>> replacing the IPI with synchronize_rcu() is fine.
>>>
>>> We are in process context (unmap_region, exit_mmap) with only mmap_lock
>>> held, a sleeping lock. synchronize_rcu() will catch any invalid context
>>> via might_sleep().
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1b27a3fa-359a-43d0-bdeb-c31341749367@kernel.org/
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20260202150957.GD1282955@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/dfdfeac9-5cd5-46fc-a5c1-9ccf9bd3502a@intel.com/
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/bc489455-bb18-44dc-8518-ae75abda6bec@kernel.org/
>>> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>>> Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
>>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand (Arm) <david@kernel.org>
>>
>> I think it was primarily Peter and Dave suggesting that :)
> 
> :)
> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/mmu_gather.c | 3 ++-
>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>> index fe5b6a031717..df670c219260 100644
>>> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>> @@ -339,7 +339,8 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>>>    #else
>>>    static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>>>    {
>>> -	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
>>> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE))
>>> +		synchronize_rcu();
>>
>> That should work.
>>
>> Reading all the comments for tlb_remove_table_smp_sync(), I wonder
>> whether we should wrap that in a tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu() function,
>> with a proper kerneldoc for the CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE variant
>> where we discuss how this relates to tlb_remove_table_sync_one (and
>> tlb_remove_table_smp_sync() .
> 
> Good point! That would be cleaner and better ;)
> 
> How about the following:
> 
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> index fe5b6a031717..ea5503d3e650 100644
> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
> @@ -296,6 +296,24 @@ static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
>   	call_rcu(&batch->rcu, tlb_remove_table_rcu);
>   }
> 
> +/**
> + * tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu() - synchronize with software page-table walkers
> + *
> + * Like tlb_remove_table_sync_one() but uses RCU grace period instead of IPI
> + * broadcast. Should be used in slow paths where sleeping is acceptable.
> + *
> + * Software/Lockless page-table walkers use local_irq_disable(), which is also
> + * an RCU read-side critical section. synchronize_rcu() waits for all such
> + * sections, providing the same guarantee as tlb_remove_table_sync_one() but
> + * without disrupting all CPUs with IPIs.
> + *
> + * Context: Can sleep/block. Cannot be called from any atomic context.
> + */
> +static void tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu(void)
> +{
> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +}
> +
>   #else /* !CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE */
> 
>   static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
> @@ -303,6 +321,10 @@ static void tlb_remove_table_free(struct mmu_table_batch *batch)
>   	__tlb_remove_table_free(batch);
>   }
> 
> +static void tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
>   #endif /* CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE */
> 
>   /*
> @@ -339,7 +361,7 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>   #else
>   static inline void __tlb_remove_table_one(void *table)
>   {
> -	tlb_remove_table_sync_one();
> +	tlb_remove_table_sync_rcu();
>   	__tlb_remove_table(table);
>   }
>   #endif /* CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM */
> ---
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion!
> Lance

LGTM, but let's hear other options.


-- 
Cheers,

David