From: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
kernel-team@meta.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 7/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request
Date: Tue, 20 May 2025 09:00:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6a3290319031cd68a383e416f53aa7549bac9407.camel@surriel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A879001-E213-4239-9D25-CDA8EC3E2CD9@gmail.com>
On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 14:29 +0300, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Not a full review, but..
>
> > On 20 May 2025, at 4:02, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This is a modified version of smp_call_function_many() of
> > kernel/smp.c,
>
> The updated function names is smp_call_function_many_cond() and it is
> not aligned with smp_call_rar_many. I think the new version is
> (suprisingly)
> better, so it’d be beneficial to bring smp_call_rar_many() to be like
> the
> updated one in smp.c.
>
Agreed, it will be good to conditionally not send
the RAR vector to some CPUs, especially ones that
are in deeper idle states.
That means structuring the code more like
smp_call_function_many_cond()
> > + /*
> > + * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
> > + * We allow cpu's that are not yet online though, as no
> > one else can
> > + * send smp call function interrupt to this cpu and as
> > such deadlocks
> > + * can't happen.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_online(this_cpu) && irqs_disabled()
> > + && !oops_in_progress &&
> > !early_boot_irqs_disabled);
>
> I thought you agreed to change it to make it use lockdep instead (so
> it will
> be compiled out without LOCKDEP), like done in
> smp_call_function_many_cond()
>
I thought I had made that change in my tree.
I guess I lost it in a rebase :(
> > +
> > + /* Try to fastpath. So, what's a CPU they want? Ignoring
> > this one. */
> > + cpu = cpumask_first_and(mask, cpu_online_mask);
> > + if (cpu == this_cpu)
> > + cpu = cpumask_next_and(cpu, mask,
> > cpu_online_mask);
> > +
>
> Putting aside the rest of the code, I see you don’t call
> should_flush_tlb().
> I think it is worth mentioning in commit log or comment the rationale
> behind
> it (and maybe benchmarks to justify it).
>
>
The long term plan here is to simply have the originating
CPU included in the cpumask, and have it send a RAR
request to itself.
That way all the CPUs can invalidate their entries in
parallel, without any extra code.
--
All Rights Reversed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-20 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-20 1:02 [RFC v2 PATCH 0/9] Intel RAR TLB invalidation Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 1/9] x86/mm: Introduce MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITIES Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 14:57 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-22 15:10 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 2/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request MSRs Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:49 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 3/9] x86/mm: enable BROADCAST_TLB_FLUSH on Intel, too Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 4/9] x86/mm: Introduce X86_FEATURE_RAR Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 13:57 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 14:53 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 16:06 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 19:39 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 5/9] x86/mm: Change cpa_flush() to call flush_kernel_range() directly Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 11:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2025-05-21 15:16 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 6/9] x86/apic: Introduce Remote Action Request Operations Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-06-04 0:11 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 15:28 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-21 15:59 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 7/9] x86/mm: Introduce Remote Action Request Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 9:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-20 12:57 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-24 9:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2025-05-20 11:29 ` Nadav Amit
2025-05-20 13:00 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2025-05-20 20:26 ` Nadav Amit
2025-05-20 20:31 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-21 16:38 ` Dave Hansen
2025-05-21 19:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2025-06-03 20:08 ` Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 8/9] x86/mm: use RAR for kernel TLB flushes Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 1:02 ` [RFC v2 9/9] x86/mm: userspace & pageout flushing using Intel RAR Rik van Riel
2025-05-20 2:48 ` [RFC v2.1 " Rik van Riel
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=6a3290319031cd68a383e416f53aa7549bac9407.camel@surriel.com \
--to=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yu-cheng.yu@intel.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