Re: [PATCH RFC v6] x86,mm,sched: make lazy TLB mode even lazier

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:39:45PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> If they're busy threads, shouldn't the yield return immediately
>> because the threads are still ready to run?  Lazy TLB won't do much
>> unless you get the kernel in some state where it's running in the
>> context of a different kernel thread and hasn't switched to
>> swapper_pg_dir.  IIRC idle works like that, but you'd need to actually
>> sleep to go idle.
>
> Right, a task doing:
>
>         for (;;) sched_yield();
>
> esp. when its the only runnable thread on the CPU, is a busy thread. It
> will not enter switch_mm(), which was where the invalidate hook was
> placed IIRC.

Hi all-

I'm guessing that this patch got abandoned, at least temporarily.  I'm
currently polishing up my PCID series, and I think it might be worth
revisiting this on top of my PCID rework.  The relevant major
infrastructure change I'm making with my PCID code is that I'm adding
an atomic64_t to each mm_context_t that gets incremented every time a
flush on that mm is requested.  With that change, we might be able to
get away with simply removing a cpu from mm_cpumask immediately when
it enters lazy mode and adding a hook to the scheduler to revalidate
the TLB state when switching mms when we were previously lazy.
Revalidation would just check that the counter hasn't changed.

--Andy