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 6193FCD128A for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:36:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D24BA6B0096; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CD4556B0099; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B73786B009A; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993396B0096 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388FCA046F for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:36:30 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81985708140.27.C85D4BE Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBFDC0007 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 08:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MQX8wujk; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1712565388; 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=JWCyBqXSOrlIAdyizfHRPZAsjfer/rBsGaiHFl8omqI=; b=egqkK6pnyxnExP8SX/cuXEEaT5+qdm6EOICp4gfQieTTXwxBiY+DS6dyTDLqBq73biV5dB grp+JkIVT3WwoxCm+XpSkQrKIrRK2ie4dCEl2nZa3sr6ddudFpIlmOb2bO2p3522J1AAs2 jemH6Cn9R/1Dq2CpfevaAO/5d2sxg3g= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MQX8wujk; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com designates 170.10.133.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1712565388; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=fAgwhfW/goL/GheVsbN3fe5Oi4SP8VZy3TjcyNGsz90S3/6swqBsJMzsIx/N4rV0WYZNEO 7jXMff3pg7ReYcqITjesN6DlVGTAekL3EDrwxDPe0JdsHXbmxrH00LvO3XmKVbqlq1CNN0 nA0Pc1G1DGKJ/pfC7VwZTb01a+u+AeU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1712565387; h=from:from: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:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=JWCyBqXSOrlIAdyizfHRPZAsjfer/rBsGaiHFl8omqI=; b=MQX8wujkyfoy/LCNRR5EeJ+QzibLRvvrNogXvAqEK6DWNcGjdedt1K8XYo37Q9hNaPVTJH X7zXjFKnxAitsFeCMYbuHrlKL38RHk2fBawb/9i8dlQDxfXV+yjf2hoRMLnq6kGZ6i81zD OW6CZSe0QwHYVDuPp+1QIcsxmFmKPkU= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-680-nZCtMMz4OtC3LEIYvuUo6g-1; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:36:23 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nZCtMMz4OtC3LEIYvuUo6g-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-41641a8895dso7055655e9.0 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712565382; x=1713170182; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:organization:autocrypt :content-language:from:references:cc:to:subject:user-agent :mime-version:date:message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JWCyBqXSOrlIAdyizfHRPZAsjfer/rBsGaiHFl8omqI=; b=NrElvm8YuhkHx63jwER2MhGNl7ndi0hYQZKVSlGuXdAXNiwsYG+Z1i9xozyP7xkqwi F9zF7m1aq3eOiogw/kVH1oe5nr4U5ZQrnLJ2Ug1XovZ8qA1J+y86NsBxT7Kh+6U54qVT Xz1UWuhxKApZOS6nenq6VAZMjQHa02Vl/LyCbB2zAQVQuavOCgOA3oeOqr4G7WUzw234 6vpUw24n7J7owYLZGQsUcXoh2HtSZKKn+212Qpc0MVrFpTch7uXJQ0boGiBBkDCW5Cuu zOhOEI0G9br5pX4+Y0WGpr76nXaqjWDBc9o5tH7X2/95cnexqZ69q2v5Dp3x4KRonrC3 br4Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVfMxu70VEffQ20C9nvmcGr1B9fssUaEOSLc8DxYMUWUIoIfVdrQdkReccfp3BqTUiTJobKWXJd0QjhjLMkEd5E08U= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxozATvVpT3KmevPemqivYXfrrEHRYvl83mwQ0xBTcSnXah1lkY yS26WKUl5o5c6krxYOmN8FMvLsrWBPKqSgkSC0UH9K1ciu7ES7BX1DdKBrwrAkHBgDMfEMT0WKG mNfv7BWGNxTP2pWaoP0b5SK2tjlDUgXFBvx9ApbDltXVDYTpm X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5106:b0:414:63c2:23cc with SMTP id o6-20020a05600c510600b0041463c223ccmr7454344wms.2.1712565382622; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGdOMw2EkAcjI9pppz0RUaGuUBEY24aFMFQ1T/VIY1IPJwT9ro5682HvMiT5fcZh5LzRE5KNw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5106:b0:414:63c2:23cc with SMTP id o6-20020a05600c510600b0041463c223ccmr7454316wms.2.1712565382195; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c718:1300:9860:66a2:fe4d:c379? (p200300cbc7181300986066a2fe4dc379.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c718:1300:9860:66a2:fe4d:c379]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q18-20020a05600c46d200b00414659ba8c2sm12643588wmo.37.2024.04.08.01.36.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:36:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Reduce cost of ptep_get_lockless on arm64 To: Ryan Roberts , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Alexander Shishkin , Jiri Olsa , Ian Rogers , Adrian Hunter , Andrew Morton , Muchun Song Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20240215121756.2734131-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <0ae22147-e1a1-4bcb-8a4c-f900f3f8c39e@redhat.com> <374d8500-4625-4bff-a934-77b5f34cf2ec@arm.com> <8bd9e136-8575-4c40-bae2-9b015d823916@redhat.com> <86680856-2532-495b-951a-ea7b2b93872f@arm.com> <35236bbf-3d9a-40e9-84b5-e10e10295c0c@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata= xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt WNyWQQ== Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: EBBFDC0007 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: 8rsp5mwzjoykdhfrpox7ywy3uiudsb4j X-HE-Tag: 1712565387-483819 X-HE-Meta: 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 wbwGp71U FgNfRfrZQ8V8JQ/wjz7iTkgCuLia1+7z2QUCGm1fw526kUBty4K29W+VbBCI1Wk2arEL274iGdlgaOPMwP4gGlLRMzxWT8wt+15wdP/EOX495b6HDdPgp5YMRp65Pmh9Yl2Ik1XKm0y91PApl3VaiUXL2Tr9V90HsS2peO9rDbVfLCUhTdwhERTqoyYNDYywH25BOE/HlkGF7ClqiTQ9Ja4y+z0c0Sf0i62szvr5SFBc1pURJejZrIG+N1a5nQ8dFxMSpWBkavdW/4m/LSKjla3BpjFuxPn5q9dfPcN7d8ldh7+dHjYgP2OObTLxVfAaqCduZdHuHj9+vLrXYHWFHLG15xYdptz8iLHjMhMX7R5Qmv6ZMX0bEWfWaQDzJD0QSrjezLd1WPW8COtbkL9fnsksz4Jclg/9zqShEY2YHNEyni2gipA3YW4e7ugb1+2I4OOOW6KlHZI59YRIDnaAvtMtCtg== 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 03.04.24 14:59, Ryan Roberts wrote: > On 27/03/2024 09:34, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 26.03.24 18:51, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 26/03/2024 17:39, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 26.03.24 18:32, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 26/03/2024 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Likely, we just want to read "the real deal" on both sides of the >>>>>>>>>> pte_same() >>>>>>>>>> handling. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry I'm not sure I understand? You mean read the full pte including >>>>>>>>> access/dirty? That's the same as dropping the patch, right? Of course if >>>>>>>>> we do >>>>>>>>> that, we still have to keep pte_get_lockless() around for this case. In an >>>>>>>>> ideal >>>>>>>>> world we would convert everything over to ptep_get_lockless_norecency() and >>>>>>>>> delete ptep_get_lockless() to remove the ugliness from arm64. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, agreed. Patch #3 does not look too crazy and it wouldn't really affect >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> architecture. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do wonder if pte_same_norecency() should be defined per architecture >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> default would be pte_same(). So we could avoid the mkold etc on all other >>>>>>>> architectures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wouldn't that break it's semantics? The "norecency" of >>>>>>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency() means "recency information in the returned pte >>>>>>> may >>>>>>> be incorrect". But the "norecency" of pte_same_norecency() means "ignore the >>>>>>> access and dirty bits when you do the comparison". >>>>>> >>>>>> My idea was that ptep_get_lockless_norecency() would return the actual >>>>>> result on >>>>>> these architectures. So e.g., on x86, there would be no actual change in >>>>>> generated code. >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a bad plan... You'll end up with subtle differences between >>>>> architectures. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But yes, the documentation of these functions would have to be improved. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I wonder if ptep_get_lockless_norecency() should actively clear >>>>>> dirty/accessed bits to more easily find any actual issues where the bits still >>>>>> matter ... >>>>> >>>>> I did a version that took that approach. Decided it was not as good as this way >>>>> though. Now for the life of me, I can't remember my reasoning. >>>> >>>> Maybe because there are some code paths that check accessed/dirty without >>>> "correctness" implications? For example, if the PTE is already dirty, no need to >>>> set it dirty etc? >>> >>> I think I decided I was penalizing the architectures that don't care because all >>> their ptep_get_norecency() and ptep_get_lockless_norecency() need to explicitly >>> clear access/dirty. And I would have needed ptep_get_norecency() from day 1 so >>> that I could feed its result into pte_same(). >> >> True. With ptep_get_norecency() you're also penalizing other architectures. >> Therefore my original thought about making the behavior arch-specific, but the >> arch has to make sure to get the combination of >> ptep_get_lockless_norecency()+ptep_same_norecency() is right. >> >> So if an arch decide to ignore bits in ptep_get_lockless_norecency(), it must >> make sure to also ignore them in ptep_same_norecency(), and must be able to >> handle access/dirty bit changes differently. >> >> Maybe one could have one variant for "hw-managed access/dirty" vs. "sw managed >> accessed or dirty". Only the former would end up ignoring stuff here, the latter >> would not. >> >> But again, just some random thoughts how this affects other architectures and >> how we could avoid it. The issue I describe in patch #3 would be gone if >> ptep_same_norecency() would just do a ptep_same() check on other architectures >> -- and would make it easier to sell :) >> > > I've been thinking some more about this. I think your proposal is the following: > > > // ARM64 > ptep_get_lockless_norecency() > { > - returned access/dirty may be incorrect > - returned access/dirty may be differently incorrect between 2 calls > } > pte_same_norecency() > { > - ignore access/dirty when doing comparison > } > ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte) > { > - must not assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than > access/dirty in *ptep > - must only set access/dirty in *ptep, never clear > } > > > // Other arches: no change to generated code > ptep_get_lockless_norecency() > { > return ptep_get_lockless(); > } > pte_same_norecency() > { > return pte_same(); > } > ptep_set_access_flags(ptep, pte) > { > - may assume access/dirty in pte are "more permissive" than access/dirty > in *ptep > - if no HW access/dirty updates, "*ptep = pte" always results in "more > permissive" change > } > > An arch either specializes all 3 or none of them. > > This would allow us to get rid of ptep_get_lockless(). > > And it addresses the bug you found with ptep_set_access_flags(). > > > BUT, I still have a nagging feeling that there are likely to be other similar > problems caused by ignoring access/dirty during pte_same_norecency(). I can't > convince myself that its definitely all safe and robust. Right, we'd have to identify the other possible cases and document what an arch + common code must stick to to make it work. Some rules would be: if an arch implements ptep_get_lockless_norecency(): (1) Passing the result from ptep_get_lockless_norecency() to pte_same() is wrong. (2) Checking pte_young()/pte_old/pte_dirty()/pte_clean() after ptep_get_lockless_norecency() is very likely wrong. > > So I'm leaning towards dropping patch 3 and therefore keeping > ptep_get_lockless() around. > > Let me know if you have any insight that might help me change my mind :) I'm wondering if it would help if we could find a better name (or concept) for "norecency" here, that expresses that only on some archs we'd have that fuzzy handling. Keeping ptep_get_lockless() around for now sounds like the best alternative. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb