Re: [RFC 15/20] mm: detect deferred TLB flushes in vma granularity

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 12:52 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 1, 2021, at 4:14 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 1, 2021, at 2:04 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Andy’s comments managed to make me realize this code is wrong. We must
>>> call inc_mm_tlb_gen(mm) every time.
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, a CPU that saw the old tlb_gen and updated it in its local
>>> cpu_tlbstate on a context-switch. If the process was not running when the
>>> TLB flush was issued, no IPI will be sent to the CPU. Therefore, later
>>> switch_mm_irqs_off() back to the process will not flush the local TLB.
>>> 
>>> I need to think if there is a better solution. Multiple calls to
>>> inc_mm_tlb_gen() during deferred flushes would trigger a full TLB flush
>>> instead of one that is specific to the ranges, once the flush actually takes
>>> place. On x86 it’s practically a non-issue, since anyhow any update of more
>>> than 33-entries or so would cause a full TLB flush, but this is still ugly.
>> 
>> What if we had a per-mm ring buffer of flushes?  When starting a flush, we would stick the range in the ring buffer and, when flushing, we would read the ring buffer to catch up.  This would mostly replace the flush_tlb_info struct, and it would let us process multiple partial flushes together.
> 
> I wanted to sleep on it, and went back and forth on whether it is the right
> direction, hence the late response.
> 
> I think that what you say make sense. I think that I even tried to do once
> something similar for some reason, but my memory plays tricks on me.
> 
> So tell me what you think on this ring-based solution. As you said, you keep
> per-mm ring of flush_tlb_info. When you queue an entry, you do something
> like:
> 
> #define RING_ENTRY_INVALID (0)
> 
>  gen = inc_mm_tlb_gen(mm);
>  struct flush_tlb_info *info = mm->ring[gen % RING_SIZE];
>  spin_lock(&mm->ring_lock);

Once you are holding the lock, you should presumably check that the ring didn’t overflow while you were getting the lock — if new_tlb_gen > gen, abort.

>  WRITE_ONCE(info->new_tlb_gen, RING_ENTRY_INVALID);
>  smp_wmb();
>  info->start = start;
>  info->end = end;
>  info->stride_shift = stride_shift;
>  info->freed_tables = freed_tables;
>  smp_store_release(&info->new_tlb_gen, gen);
>  spin_unlock(&mm->ring_lock);
> 

Seems reasonable.  I’m curious how this ends up getting used.

> When you flush you use the entry generation as a sequence lock. On overflow
> of the ring (i.e., sequence number mismatch) you perform a full flush:
> 
>  for (gen = mm->tlb_gen_completed; gen < mm->tlb_gen; gen++) {
>    struct flush_tlb_info *info = &mm->ring[gen % RING_SIZE];
> 
>    // detect overflow and invalid entries
>    if (smp_load_acquire(info->new_tlb_gen) != gen)
>        goto full_flush;
> 
>    start = min(start, info->start);
>    end = max(end, info->end);
>    stride_shift = min(stride_shift, info->stride_shift);
>    freed_tables |= info.freed_tables;
>    smp_rmb();
> 
>    // seqlock-like check that the information was not updated 
>    if (READ_ONCE(info->new_tlb_gen) != gen)
>        goto full_flush;
>  }
> 
> On x86 I suspect that performing a full TLB flush would anyhow be the best
> thing to do if there is more than a single entry. I am also not sure that it
> makes sense to check the ring from flush_tlb_func_common() (i.e., in each
> IPI handler) as it might cause cache thrashing.
> 
> Instead it may be better to do so from flush_tlb_mm_range(), when the
> flushes are initiated, and use an aggregated flush_tlb_info for the flush.
> 
> It may also be better to have the ring arch-independent, so it would
> resemble more of mmu_gather (the parts about the TLB flush information,
> without the freed pages stuff).
> 
> We can detect deferred TLB flushes either by storing “deferred_gen” in the
> page-tables/VMA (as I did) or by going over the ring, from tlb_gen_completed
> to tlb_gen, and checking for an overlap. I think page-tables would be most
> efficient/scalable, but perhaps going over the ring would be easier to
> understand logic.
> 
> Makes sense? Thoughts?