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 021ACC433EF for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:43:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 871806B0071; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7F8806B0073; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:43:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 64BA66B0074; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:43:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528D36B0071 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin22.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FD2120481 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:43:03 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79586029446.22.19225B1 Received: from mail-vk1-f178.google.com (mail-vk1-f178.google.com [209.85.221.178]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF15718001E for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 01:43:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id z17so1386030vkb.13 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:43:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=o21zxVymcDoocZqYnqtyLWw9WczAWnySXHM2icvTQIQ=; b=Rz8QM+1bp9KdwGXwr3uVXBhPGpjg5/YEBNW7Un6JsfjanqVYvrQ1rqnnFG5jHsdUZ6 oppHhUMtDyPoEvaBVWw/y5bAiYnAhlVaqQePo3Yox+Q1yXrF8W1cqeYxtRPrJYpvoIwQ sTti4eT1wr7lP1fOkQe3ibipSvqi5q6UZtUzc8UfKh58yb2QQdBn8l0PhcbBzgMKrVZy GWbCXfWCH13atYKA25YEN85xsGzCU0Ovg17L/g0K0b4C1erdDCPDwbwcQfE5jfQxaYuG 70K5nMSuITS55Te3jlXTIdHarc2TGl4b02M7Thx+rKG1aOLwS6fbAfG2S+gZlZIAU2ZN N4qQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=o21zxVymcDoocZqYnqtyLWw9WczAWnySXHM2icvTQIQ=; b=gGbo71UB8k0+rS07+FS63Ep6pXOXr0qKTA4GEvZGOxcuuFCgd1ThjEYbKviJkiBbrO tqGeHb86PNMKnSmMuEStV03pXJJPSoVLhnGIXsO6Oe7lkUdzXFZsxUS0J1cfK92W1+9N 8OVMiAz3qHenPit5AYQriYaBXlTXq/WnIE1XI66Y5wZY61qRq9HUf2LDDUCVAq0x+Nr6 TyfDo7aIQFmCUDQ71jTD6YGw+OMbACL3qJwxtB2wq7gzIe6C/+Ls7aREWTduOv6DnVEG 3LehusgU+hu0g4evDwTWpO7u9yL13+V2/IiE2wQJ9yPpb43X1QFIe1V4DFiSI/N00NN8 YNtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+LVGtQeyoxliBfP3rdXZTWmT3T+E0T092BNhueLxikQ5ZbIeZh mtpueC7CH7x2iTMu1wCrw+eamE4kYlOCJqkh+90lgg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vDfbyUn4OY+TQe70MnwVcbhRK3DIMcjtAhCf2Jzx5dAcoHgGEq9Bg6S7NZU57gcgwPg0/koovMtDV4ObvKHqI= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:add0:0:b0:361:1bf:7c58 with SMTP id w199-20020a1fadd0000000b0036101bf7c58mr3575164vke.31.1655430181818; Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:43:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220518014632.922072-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20220518014632.922072-8-yuzhao@google.com> <20220607102135.GA32448@willie-the-truck> <20220607104358.GA32583@willie-the-truck> In-Reply-To: From: Yu Zhao Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 19:42:25 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 07/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: exploit locality in rmap To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds , Will Deacon , Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , Andi Kleen , Aneesh Kumar , Catalin Marinas , Dave Hansen , Hillf Danton , Jens Axboe , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Michael Larabel , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , Vlastimil Babka , LAK , Linux Doc Mailing List , LKML , x86 , Kernel Page Reclaim v2 , Brian Geffon , Jan Alexander Steffens , Oleksandr Natalenko , Steven Barrett , Suleiman Souhlal , Daniel Byrne , Donald Carr , =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= , Konstantin Kharlamov , Shuang Zhai , Sofia Trinh , Vaibhav Jain , huzhanyuan@oppo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1655430182; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=o21zxVymcDoocZqYnqtyLWw9WczAWnySXHM2icvTQIQ=; b=N9F3LrFqyTzwVxsQ+43eSm5fwrtPDSLWZVxr7YSnMlcmsSWCcOaa0JQavJ5TCDWnLX5Fqk a2bI/P9BzJrxQaw/dS8Jx4GCyFEs8bR9+Gi94rgXYf8elYeAVWRp8YdhODJtG9tCnNoBKM pOZRkQp8Xr/F6vfjCNk2rVdtEO8VX6E= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=Rz8QM+1b; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of yuzhao@google.com designates 209.85.221.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yuzhao@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1655430182; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=OpFsdK7OY8WDkP0H+r+NeK731wBdH4CT+MLq6SbZeMhyGPBqSyME+sXwV8sGDx6czMxmfa iZ3LgNa0NeQZu9kNt/rvdl8DcNqtYB0JVL2e76AbwqcXRwrvgLb1BzFNZk9p7J8l3AL4bJ 66FCJ6MSVFr4BZhP8FgEIIL2Nax6bXg= X-Stat-Signature: 6rngkaymf663dz7kz5z69wyt59axrccp X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CF15718001E X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf16.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=Rz8QM+1b; spf=pass (imf16.hostedemail.com: domain of yuzhao@google.com designates 209.85.221.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yuzhao@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-HE-Tag: 1655430182-3726 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: On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:29 PM Yu Zhao wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 4:33 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Yu Zhao wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 4:46 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:52 AM Linus Torvalds > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 5:43 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Given we used to have a flush for clear pte young in LRU, right now we are > > > > > > moving to nop in almost all cases for the flush unless the address becomes > > > > > > young exactly after look_around and before ptep_clear_flush_young_notify. > > > > > > It means we are actually dropping flush. So the question is, were we > > > > > > overcautious? we actually don't need the flush at all even without mglru? > > > > > > > > > > We stopped flushing the TLB on A bit clears on x86 back in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > See commit b13b1d2d8692 ("x86/mm: In the PTE swapout page reclaim case > > > > > clear the accessed bit instead of flushing the TLB"). > > > > > > > > This is true for x86, RISC-V, powerpc and S390. but it is not true for > > > > most platforms. > > > > > > > > There was an attempt to do the same thing in arm64: > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1793830.html > > > > but arm64 still sent a nosync tlbi and depent on a deferred to dsb : > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1794484.html > > > > > > Barry, you've already answered your own question. > > > > > > Without commit 07509e10dcc7 arm64: pgtable: Fix pte_accessible(): > > > #define pte_accessible(mm, pte) \ > > > - (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid_young(pte)) > > > + (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid(pte)) > > > > > > You missed all TLB flushes for PTEs that have gone through > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() on the reclaim path. But most of the time, > > > you got away with it, only occasional app crashes: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAGsJ_4w6JjuG4rn2P=d974wBOUtXUUnaZKnx+-G6a8_mSROa+Q@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > > > Why? > > > > Yes. On the arm64 platform, ptep_test_and_clear_young() without flush > > can cause random > > App to crash. > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() + flush won't have this kind of crashes though. > > But after applying commit 07509e10dcc7 arm64: pgtable: Fix > > pte_accessible(), on arm64, > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() without flush won't cause App to crash. > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), with flush, without commit 07509e10dcc7: OK > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), without flush, with commit 07509e10dcc7: OK > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), without flush, without commit 07509e10dcc7: CRASH > > I agree -- my question was rhetorical :) > > I was trying to imply this logic: > 1. We cleared the A-bit in PTEs with ptep_test_and_clear_young() > 2. We missed TLB flush for those PTEs on the reclaim path, i.e., case > 3 (case 1 & 2 guarantee flushes) > 3. We saw crashes, but only occasionally > > Assuming TLB cached those PTEs, we would have seen the crashes more > often, which contradicts our observation. So the conclusion is TLB > didn't cache them most of the time, meaning flushing TLB just for the > sake of the A-bit isn't necessary. > > > do you think it is safe to totally remove the flush code even for > > the original > > LRU? > > Affirmative, based on not only my words, but 3rd parties': > 1. Your (indirect) observation > 2. Alexander's benchmark: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/BYAPR12MB271295B398729E07F31082A7CFAA0@BYAPR12MB2712.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/ > 3. The fundamental hardware limitation in terms of the TLB scalability > (Fig. 1): https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/osdi02/tech/full_papers/navarro/navarro.pdf 4. Intel's commit b13b1d2d8692 ("x86/mm: In the PTE swapout page reclaim case clear the accessed bit instead of flushing the TLB")