Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Reduce cost of ptep_get_lockless on arm64

[Ryan Roberts]

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 :)

Perhaps - let me chew on that for a bit. It doesn't feel as easy as you suggest
to me. But I can't put my finger on why...