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 kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D870E77197 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:19:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 69F3F6B00AC; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 628936B00AE; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:19:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 452EB6B00B0; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:19:02 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F776B00AC for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:19:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3868057F for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:19:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82989178482.13.935AA34 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.9]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4360C0016 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 21:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=TY+UTfh8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of dave.hansen@intel.com designates 198.175.65.9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dave.hansen@intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1736457539; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=P3fKSKAAAilDbt29Yy2GyxQjSHDLv++9PW0YBnbYnzI=; b=XR9tooZkmHwO2TQubRu2eWJxpc6O8IBFj+RtVVEoRgG6TfUXfs1YGpiVmGp+TrrBVZRxBM 29WvDWLAh4E9+Ci11IdAeiE3/ua7wHXplzahkT64gswNz6/gmWyakgNY//IvpIFcv5hHav 9yM+4wDjtOm3oAcoF8F20LIJ278gR3s= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1736457539; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=IehJqWeQ8Nnca/+iqTcK7e8t87gUBZiiayOS9oFkeX8TToYey838QmVrIiXHqKPZWQ9/ok RLD8YXe0Vv0lRvpIDaK2BtbkzGnx6Kv1nwu5DVSXiK5OIsfytvpfQoVgKk1eJSwK2YduJh EtxmXzZy67Ur1RhQFBWvqiFEKk18ECk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=TY+UTfh8; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of dave.hansen@intel.com designates 198.175.65.9 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dave.hansen@intel.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1736457539; x=1767993539; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bzi6CHSMlJyuw0+bmvJQTZWlVGLccFkZqz8yvGmNo+w=; b=TY+UTfh8JAXUvPTxNPKks4IEL2RbsAtKqxBAhVhQGb18S+lO2yrogYNa M6Tc5nVM5jxl+RAQXw9QsmBn5MfAaw+VTxR/yE07K/GYPzFslOHRrFWi1 v7fj1W5j4pO9A0kOEB31FwcCxuLHz/jk39Rwe4GmTfwPf1+fwBzUxjyVQ wCTeEdl7f+cWgr1CSVln6esRxMF7ktxgdM/EUjwB1LOPKLV7AzDbzUhS9 kID/WYiCtAxeZ5e+2kgit61owiVKweSLqss09IuK3gZ9VcUSUgxMYJeoL O69k8QB6XXqUNXFphBmlFG3yjktpRqh6sxZ9YNMhBIF9SOA+pvmSfG0iW A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: y1jTCMzRTkCDII3MSl35SQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: T64OErspQuycbnakZlB8OQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11310"; a="59213822" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,302,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="59213822" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by orvoesa101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2025 13:18:57 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: xjqCGvO7SGCLbUEc8XwijQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: sXRSiTZoQCmi0HRNOG9Kgg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,302,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="103332245" Received: from spandruv-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.124.222.37]) ([10.124.222.37]) by fmviesa006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2025 13:18:56 -0800 Message-ID: <426011a9-1fbc-415c-bac7-df5d67417df3@intel.com> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 13:18:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] x86/mm: use INVLPGB for kernel TLB flushes To: Rik van Riel , x86@kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nadav.amit@gmail.com, zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20241230175550.4046587-1-riel@surriel.com> <20241230175550.4046587-7-riel@surriel.com> <855298e6e981378c3afeab93b8c3cb821a7a5b88.camel@surriel.com> From: Dave Hansen Content-Language: en-US Autocrypt: addr=dave.hansen@intel.com; keydata= xsFNBE6HMP0BEADIMA3XYkQfF3dwHlj58Yjsc4E5y5G67cfbt8dvaUq2fx1lR0K9h1bOI6fC oAiUXvGAOxPDsB/P6UEOISPpLl5IuYsSwAeZGkdQ5g6m1xq7AlDJQZddhr/1DC/nMVa/2BoY 2UnKuZuSBu7lgOE193+7Uks3416N2hTkyKUSNkduyoZ9F5twiBhxPJwPtn/wnch6n5RsoXsb ygOEDxLEsSk/7eyFycjE+btUtAWZtx+HseyaGfqkZK0Z9bT1lsaHecmB203xShwCPT49Blxz VOab8668QpaEOdLGhtvrVYVK7x4skyT3nGWcgDCl5/Vp3TWA4K+IofwvXzX2ON/Mj7aQwf5W iC+3nWC7q0uxKwwsddJ0Nu+dpA/UORQWa1NiAftEoSpk5+nUUi0WE+5DRm0H+TXKBWMGNCFn c6+EKg5zQaa8KqymHcOrSXNPmzJuXvDQ8uj2J8XuzCZfK4uy1+YdIr0yyEMI7mdh4KX50LO1 pmowEqDh7dLShTOif/7UtQYrzYq9cPnjU2ZW4qd5Qz2joSGTG9eCXLz5PRe5SqHxv6ljk8mb ApNuY7bOXO/A7T2j5RwXIlcmssqIjBcxsRRoIbpCwWWGjkYjzYCjgsNFL6rt4OL11OUF37wL QcTl7fbCGv53KfKPdYD5hcbguLKi/aCccJK18ZwNjFhqr4MliQARAQABzUVEYXZpZCBDaHJp c3RvcGhlciBIYW5zZW4gKEludGVsIFdvcmsgQWRkcmVzcykgPGRhdmUuaGFuc2VuQGludGVs LmNvbT7CwXgEEwECACIFAlQ+9J0CGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEGg1 lTBwyZKwLZUP/0dnbhDc229u2u6WtK1s1cSd9WsflGXGagkR6liJ4um3XCfYWDHvIdkHYC1t MNcVHFBwmQkawxsYvgO8kXT3SaFZe4ISfB4K4CL2qp4JO+nJdlFUbZI7cz/Td9z8nHjMcWYF IQuTsWOLs/LBMTs+ANumibtw6UkiGVD3dfHJAOPNApjVr+M0P/lVmTeP8w0uVcd2syiaU5jB aht9CYATn+ytFGWZnBEEQFnqcibIaOrmoBLu2b3fKJEd8Jp7NHDSIdrvrMjYynmc6sZKUqH2 I1qOevaa8jUg7wlLJAWGfIqnu85kkqrVOkbNbk4TPub7VOqA6qG5GCNEIv6ZY7HLYd/vAkVY E8Plzq/NwLAuOWxvGrOl7OPuwVeR4hBDfcrNb990MFPpjGgACzAZyjdmYoMu8j3/MAEW4P0z F5+EYJAOZ+z212y1pchNNauehORXgjrNKsZwxwKpPY9qb84E3O9KYpwfATsqOoQ6tTgr+1BR CCwP712H+E9U5HJ0iibN/CDZFVPL1bRerHziuwuQuvE0qWg0+0SChFe9oq0KAwEkVs6ZDMB2 P16MieEEQ6StQRlvy2YBv80L1TMl3T90Bo1UUn6ARXEpcbFE0/aORH/jEXcRteb+vuik5UGY 5TsyLYdPur3TXm7XDBdmmyQVJjnJKYK9AQxj95KlXLVO38lczsFNBFRjzmoBEACyAxbvUEhd GDGNg0JhDdezyTdN8C9BFsdxyTLnSH31NRiyp1QtuxvcqGZjb2trDVuCbIzRrgMZLVgo3upr MIOx1CXEgmn23Zhh0EpdVHM8IKx9Z7V0r+rrpRWFE8/wQZngKYVi49PGoZj50ZEifEJ5qn/H Nsp2+Y+bTUjDdgWMATg9DiFMyv8fvoqgNsNyrrZTnSgoLzdxr89FGHZCoSoAK8gfgFHuO54B lI8QOfPDG9WDPJ66HCodjTlBEr/Cwq6GruxS5i2Y33YVqxvFvDa1tUtl+iJ2SWKS9kCai2DR 3BwVONJEYSDQaven/EHMlY1q8Vln3lGPsS11vSUK3QcNJjmrgYxH5KsVsf6PNRj9mp8Z1kIG qjRx08+nnyStWC0gZH6NrYyS9rpqH3j+hA2WcI7De51L4Rv9pFwzp161mvtc6eC/GxaiUGuH BNAVP0PY0fqvIC68p3rLIAW3f97uv4ce2RSQ7LbsPsimOeCo/5vgS6YQsj83E+AipPr09Caj 0hloj+hFoqiticNpmsxdWKoOsV0PftcQvBCCYuhKbZV9s5hjt9qn8CE86A5g5KqDf83Fxqm/ vXKgHNFHE5zgXGZnrmaf6resQzbvJHO0Fb0CcIohzrpPaL3YepcLDoCCgElGMGQjdCcSQ+Ci FCRl0Bvyj1YZUql+ZkptgGjikQARAQABwsFfBBgBAgAJBQJUY85qAhsMAAoJEGg1lTBwyZKw l4IQAIKHs/9po4spZDFyfDjunimEhVHqlUt7ggR1Hsl/tkvTSze8pI1P6dGp2XW6AnH1iayn yRcoyT0ZJ+Zmm4xAH1zqKjWplzqdb/dO28qk0bPso8+1oPO8oDhLm1+tY+cOvufXkBTm+whm +AyNTjaCRt6aSMnA/QHVGSJ8grrTJCoACVNhnXg/R0g90g8iV8Q+IBZyDkG0tBThaDdw1B2l asInUTeb9EiVfL/Zjdg5VWiF9LL7iS+9hTeVdR09vThQ/DhVbCNxVk+DtyBHsjOKifrVsYep WpRGBIAu3bK8eXtyvrw1igWTNs2wazJ71+0z2jMzbclKAyRHKU9JdN6Hkkgr2nPb561yjcB8 sIq1pFXKyO+nKy6SZYxOvHxCcjk2fkw6UmPU6/j/nQlj2lfOAgNVKuDLothIxzi8pndB8Jju KktE5HJqUUMXePkAYIxEQ0mMc8Po7tuXdejgPMwgP7x65xtfEqI0RuzbUioFltsp1jUaRwQZ MTsCeQDdjpgHsj+P2ZDeEKCbma4m6Ez/YWs4+zDm1X8uZDkZcfQlD9NldbKDJEXLIjYWo1PH hYepSffIWPyvBMBTW2W5FRjJ4vLRrJSUoEfJuPQ3vW9Y73foyo/qFoURHO48AinGPZ7PC7TF vUaNOTjKedrqHkaOcqB185ahG2had0xnFsDPlx5y In-Reply-To: <855298e6e981378c3afeab93b8c3cb821a7a5b88.camel@surriel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Stat-Signature: aabi6j54peugn4x7jgncwst9dk99rb3i X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B4360C0016 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-HE-Tag: 1736457538-443571 X-HE-Meta: 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 izr2Qk0P g/8yK8VAZgoDyGdQtAJdUkV+yK/ri7y5+jK8RDxBQen/Tz4l5GauUiEpvSWVKyChMVDvQolpAV2XjYWeOz4yY5TcN4bYf+H8HDux51w/3MyrFGceyXO/L3uf7GT7OGZzIWP8PgPc1DsDmn8I2EFv03NZUBG+bYOaQYiY7JJBmJpXBiw0D6gimCJGHtF+YV3nhxmN6VVSIUgqgqMRkO5VSa8WlKzNfuuaBtFDwxUBcgTLWIgdQzgGRnzog09e7GjLjCuPWv1XlUruww1lrvMK5CToOM+JQTxfAKfe+siDiZ21YPac= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 1/9/25 12:16, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2025-01-06 at 09:21 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 12/30/24 09:53, Rik van Riel wrote: >> >> >>> +static void broadcast_kernel_range_flush(unsigned long start, >>> unsigned long end) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned long addr; >>> + unsigned long maxnr = invlpgb_count_max; >>> + unsigned long threshold = tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling * >>> maxnr; >> >> The 'tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling' value was determined by >> looking at _local_ invalidation cost. Could you talk a bit about >> why it's also a good value to use for remote invalidations? Does it >> hold up for INVLPGB the same way it did for good ol' INVLPG? Has >> there been any explicit testing here to find a good value? >> >> I'm also confused by the multiplication here. Let's say >> invlpgb_count_max==20 and tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling==30. >> >> You would need to switch away from single-address invalidation >> when the number of addresses is >20 for INVLPGB functional reasons. >> But you'd also need to switch away when >30 for performance >> reasons (tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling). >> >> But I don't understand how that would make the threshold 20*30=600 >> invalidations. > > I have not done any measurement to see how > flushing with INVLPGB stacks up versus > local TLB flushes. > > What makes INVLPGB potentially slower: > - These flushes are done globally > > What makes INVLPGB potentially faster: > - Multiple flushes can be pending simultaneously, > and executed in any convenient order by the CPUs. > - Wait once on completion of all the queued flushes. > > Another thing that makes things interesting is the  > TLB entry coalescing done by AMD CPUs. > > When multiple pages are both virtually and physically > contiguous in memory (which is fairly common), the > CPU can use a single TLB entry to map up to 8 of them. > > That means if we issue eg. 20 INVLPGB flushes for > 8 4kB pages each, instead of the CPUs needing to > remove 160 TLB entries, there might only be 50. I honestly don't expect there to be any real difference in INVLPGB execution on the sender side based on what the receivers have in their TLB. > I just guessed at the numbers used in my code, > while trying to sort out the details elsewhere > in the code. > > How should we go about measuring the tradeoffs > between invalidation time, and the time spent > in TLB misses from flushing unnecessary stuff? Well, we did a bunch of benchmarks for INVLPG. We could dig that back up and repeat some of it. But actually I think INVLPGB is *WAY* better than INVLPG here. INVLPG doesn't have ranged invalidation. It will only architecturally invalidate multiple 4K entries when the hardware fractured them in the first place. I think we should probably take advantage of what INVLPGB can do instead of following the INVLPG approach. INVLPGB will invalidate a range no matter where the underlying entries came from. Its "increment the virtual address at the 2M boundary" mode will invalidate entries of any size. That's my reading of the docs at least. Is that everyone else's reading too? So, let's pick a number "Z" which is >= invlpgb_count_max. Z could arguably be set to tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling. Then do this: 4k -> Z*4k => use 4k step >Z*4k -> Z*2M => use 2M step >Z*2M => invalidate everything Invalidations <=Z*4k are exact. They never zap extra TLB entries. Invalidations that use the 2M step *might* unnecessarily zap some extra 4k mappings in the last 2M, but this is *WAY* better than invalidating everything. "Invalidate everything" obviously stinks, but it should only be for pretty darn big invalidations. This approach can also do a true ranged INVLPGB for many more cases than the existing proposal. The only issue would be if the 2M step is substantially more expensive than the 4k step. ... >> I also wonder if this would all get simpler if we give in and >> *always* call get_flush_tlb_info(). That would provide a nice >> single place to consolidate the "all vs. ranged" flush logic. > > Possibly. That might be a good way to unify that threshold check? > > That should probably be a separate patch, though. Yes, it should be part of refactoring that comes before the INVLPGB enabling.