linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)" <davidhildenbrandkernel@gmail.com>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
	Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
	Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>,
	"Christoph Lameter (Ampere)" <cl@gentwo.org>,
	Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
	Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
	Yin Fengwei <fengwei_yin@linux.alibaba.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v4 2/2] arm64, tlbflush: don't TLBI broadcast if page reused in write fault
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:47:10 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b9fa85b-54ff-415c-9163-461e28b6d660@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251104095516.7912-3-ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>

On 04.11.25 10:55, Huang Ying wrote:
> A multi-thread customer workload with large memory footprint uses
> fork()/exec() to run some external programs every tens seconds.  When
> running the workload on an arm64 server machine, it's observed that
> quite some CPU cycles are spent in the TLB flushing functions.  While
> running the workload on the x86_64 server machine, it's not.  This
> causes the performance on arm64 to be much worse than that on x86_64.
> 
> During the workload running, after fork()/exec() write-protects all
> pages in the parent process, memory writing in the parent process
> will cause a write protection fault.  Then the page fault handler
> will make the PTE/PDE writable if the page can be reused, which is
> almost always true in the workload.  On arm64, to avoid the write
> protection fault on other CPUs, the page fault handler flushes the TLB
> globally with TLBI broadcast after changing the PTE/PDE.  However, this
> isn't always necessary.  Firstly, it's safe to leave some stale
> read-only TLB entries as long as they will be flushed finally.
> Secondly, it's quite possible that the original read-only PTE/PDEs
> aren't cached in remote TLB at all if the memory footprint is large.
> In fact, on x86_64, the page fault handler doesn't flush the remote
> TLB in this situation, which benefits the performance a lot.
> 
> To improve the performance on arm64, make the write protection fault
> handler flush the TLB locally instead of globally via TLBI broadcast
> after making the PTE/PDE writable.  If there are stale read-only TLB
> entries in the remote CPUs, the page fault handler on these CPUs will
> regard the page fault as spurious and flush the stale TLB entries.
> 
> To test the patchset, make the usemem.c from
> vm-scalability (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git).
> support calling fork()/exec() periodically.  To mimic the behavior of
> the customer workload, run usemem with 4 threads, access 100GB memory,
> and call fork()/exec() every 40 seconds.  Test results show that with
> the patchset the score of usemem improves ~40.6%.  The cycles% of TLB
> flush functions reduces from ~50.5% to ~0.3% in perf profile.
> 

All makes sense to me.

Some smaller comments below.

[...]

> +
> +static inline void local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify(
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long uaddr)

NIT: "struct vm_area_struct *vma" fits onto the previous line.

> +{
> +	__local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync(vma->vm_mm, uaddr);
> +	dsb(nsh);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void local_flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> +					unsigned long uaddr)
> +{
> +	__local_flush_tlb_page_nonotify_nosync(vma->vm_mm, uaddr);
> +	mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(vma->vm_mm, uaddr & PAGE_MASK,
> +						(uaddr & PAGE_MASK) + PAGE_SIZE);
> +	dsb(nsh);
> +}
> +
>   static inline void __flush_tlb_page_nosync(struct mm_struct *mm,
>   					   unsigned long uaddr)
>   {
> @@ -472,6 +512,22 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   	dsb(ish);
>   }
>   
> +static inline void local_flush_tlb_contpte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> +					   unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +	unsigned long asid;
> +
> +	addr = round_down(addr, CONT_PTE_SIZE);
> +
> +	dsb(nshst);
> +	asid = ASID(vma->vm_mm);
> +	__flush_tlb_range_op(vale1, addr, CONT_PTES, PAGE_SIZE, asid,
> +			     3, true, lpa2_is_enabled());
> +	mmu_notifier_arch_invalidate_secondary_tlbs(vma->vm_mm, addr,
> +						    addr + CONT_PTE_SIZE);
> +	dsb(nsh);
> +}
> +
>   static inline void flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   				   unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
>   {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
> index c0557945939c..589bcf878938 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c
> @@ -622,8 +622,7 @@ int contpte_ptep_set_access_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   			__ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, ptep, entry, 0);
>   
>   		if (dirty)
> -			__flush_tlb_range(vma, start_addr, addr,
> -							PAGE_SIZE, true, 3);
> +			local_flush_tlb_contpte(vma, start_addr);

In this case, we now flush a bigger range than we used to, no?

Probably I am missing something (should this change be explained in more 
detail in the cover letter), but I'm wondering why this contpte handling 
wasn't required before on this level.

>   	} else {
>   		__contpte_try_unfold(vma->vm_mm, addr, ptep, orig_pte);
>   		__ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, ptep, entry, dirty);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index d816ff44faff..22f54f5afe3f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ int __ptep_set_access_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>   
>   	/* Invalidate a stale read-only entry */

I would expand this comment to also explain how remote TLBs are handled 
very briefly -> flush_tlb_fix_spurious_fault().

>   	if (dirty)
> -		flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
> +		local_flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
>   	return 1;
>   }
>   



  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-06 11:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-04  9:55 [PATCH -v4 0/2] arm, tlbflush: avoid " Huang Ying
2025-11-04  9:55 ` [PATCH -v4 1/2] mm: add spurious fault fixing support for huge pmd Huang Ying
2025-11-04  9:55 ` [PATCH -v4 2/2] arm64, tlbflush: don't TLBI broadcast if page reused in write fault Huang Ying
2025-11-06  9:47   ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) [this message]
2025-11-06 16:54     ` Ryan Roberts
2025-11-08  7:20     ` Huang, Ying
2025-11-06  1:01 ` [PATCH -v4 0/2] arm, tlbflush: avoid " Huang, Ying

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=2b9fa85b-54ff-415c-9163-461e28b6d660@gmail.com \
    --to=davidhildenbrandkernel@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=baohua@kernel.org \
    --cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
    --cc=fengwei_yin@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.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