On 5/13/19 9:20 PM, Yang Shi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/13/19 7:01 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 2019 4:01 PM, Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 5/13/19 9:38 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>     > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 07:26:54AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>     >> diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     >> index 99740e1..469492d 100644
>>     >> --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     >> +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     >> @@ -245,14 +245,39 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>     >>   {
>>     >>       /*
>>     >>        * If there are parallel threads are doing PTE changes
>>     on same range
>>     >> -     * under non-exclusive lock(e.g., mmap_sem read-side) but
>>     defer TLB
>>     >> -     * flush by batching, a thread has stable TLB entry can
>>     fail to flush
>>     >> -     * the TLB by observing pte_none|!pte_dirty, for example
>>     so flush TLB
>>     >> -     * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>     >> +     * under non-exclusive lock (e.g., mmap_sem read-side)
>>     but defer TLB
>>     >> +     * flush by batching, one thread may end up seeing
>>     inconsistent PTEs
>>     >> +     * and result in having stale TLB entries.  So flush TLB
>>     forcefully
>>     >> +     * if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>     >> +     *
>>     >> +     * However, some syscalls, e.g. munmap(), may free page
>>     tables, this
>>     >> +     * needs force flush everything in the given range.
>>     Otherwise this
>>     >> +     * may result in having stale TLB entries for some
>>     architectures,
>>     >> +     * e.g. aarch64, that could specify flush what level TLB.
>>     >>        */
>>     >> -    if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
>>     >> -            __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
>>     >> -            __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
>>     >> +    if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm) && !tlb->fullmm) {
>>     >> +            /*
>>     >> +             * Since we can't tell what we actually should have
>>     >> +             * flushed, flush everything in the given range.
>>     >> +             */
>>     >> +            tlb->freed_tables = 1;
>>     >> +            tlb->cleared_ptes = 1;
>>     >> +            tlb->cleared_pmds = 1;
>>     >> +            tlb->cleared_puds = 1;
>>     >> +            tlb->cleared_p4ds = 1;
>>     >> +
>>     >> +            /*
>>     >> +             * Some architectures, e.g. ARM, that have range
>>     invalidation
>>     >> +             * and care about VM_EXEC for I-Cache
>>     invalidation, need force
>>     >> +             * vma_exec set.
>>     >> +             */
>>     >> +            tlb->vma_exec = 1;
>>     >> +
>>     >> +            /* Force vma_huge clear to guarantee safer flush */
>>     >> +            tlb->vma_huge = 0;
>>     >> +
>>     >> +            tlb->start = start;
>>     >> +            tlb->end = end;
>>     >>       }
>>     > Whilst I think this is correct, it would be interesting to see
>>     whether
>>     > or not it's actually faster than just nuking the whole mm, as I
>>     mentioned
>>     > before.
>>     >
>>     > At least in terms of getting a short-term fix, I'd prefer the
>>     diff below
>>     > if it's not measurably worse.
>>
>>     I did a quick test with ebizzy (96 threads with 5 iterations) on
>>     my x86
>>     VM, it shows slightly slowdown on records/s but much more sys
>>     time spent
>>     with fullmm flush, the below is the data.
>>
>>     nofullmm                 fullmm
>>     ops (records/s) 225606                  225119
>>     sys (s) 0.69                        1.14
>>
>>     It looks the slight reduction of records/s is caused by the
>>     increase of
>>     sys time.
>>
>>     >
>>     > Will
>>     >
>>     > --->8
>>     >
>>     > diff --git a/mm/mmu_gather.c b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     > index 99740e1dd273..cc251422d307 100644
>>     > --- a/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     > +++ b/mm/mmu_gather.c
>>     > @@ -251,8 +251,9 @@ void tlb_finish_mmu(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>     >         * forcefully if we detect parallel PTE batching threads.
>>     >         */
>>     >        if (mm_tlb_flush_nested(tlb->mm)) {
>>     > +             tlb->fullmm = 1;
>>     >                __tlb_reset_range(tlb);
>>     > -             __tlb_adjust_range(tlb, start, end - start);
>>     > +             tlb->freed_tables = 1;
>>     >        }
>>     >
>>     >        tlb_flush_mmu(tlb);
>>
>>
>> I think that this should have set need_flush_all and not fullmm.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I did a quick test with ebizzy too. It 
> looks this is almost same with the v2 patch and slightly better than 
> what Will suggested.

But, it seems a little weird, need_flush_all should do the same thing as 
what fullmm does on x86. Did I miss anything? Or maybe ebizzy's result 
is not that stable?

>
> nofullmm                 fullmm                need_flush_all
> ops (records/s)              225606 225119                   225647
> sys (s)                            0.69 1.14                          0.47
>
> If no objection from other folks, I would respin the patch based off 
> Nadav's suggestion.
>
>
>