Re: [PATCH v10 00/12] LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) reducing tlb numbers over 90%

[Byungchul Park]

On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 09:11:45AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Byungchul Park <byungchul@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:41:22AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 5/28/24 22:00, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >> > All the code updating ptes already performs TLB flush needed in a safe
> >> > way if it's inevitable e.g. munmap.  LUF which controls when to flush in
> >> > a higer level than arch code, just leaves stale ro tlb entries that are
> >> > currently supposed to be in use.  Could you give a scenario that you are
> >> > concering?
> >> 
> >> Let's go back this scenario:
> >> 
> >>  	fd = open("/some/file", O_RDONLY);
> >>  	ptr1 = mmap(-1, size, PROT_READ, ..., fd, ...);
> >>  	foo1 = *ptr1;
> >> 
> >> There's a read-only PTE at 'ptr1'.  Right?  The page being pointed to is
> >> eligible for LUF via the try_to_unmap() paths.  In other words, the page
> >> might be reclaimed at any time.  If it is reclaimed, the PTE will be
> >> cleared.
> >> 
> >> Then, the user might do:
> >> 
> >> 	munmap(ptr1, PAGE_SIZE);
> >> 
> >> Which will _eventually_ wind up in the zap_pte_range() loop.  But that
> >> loop will only see pte_none().  It doesn't do _anything_ to the 'struct
> >> mmu_gather'.
> >> 
> >> The munmap() then lands in tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() where it looks at the
> >> 'struct mmu_gather':
> >> 
> >>         if (!(tlb->freed_tables || tlb->cleared_ptes ||
> >> 	      tlb->cleared_pmds || tlb->cleared_puds ||
> >> 	      tlb->cleared_p4ds))
> >>                 return;
> >> 
> >> But since there were no cleared PTEs (or anything else) during the
> >> unmap, this just returns and doesn't flush the TLB.
> >> 
> >> We now have an address space with a stale TLB entry at 'ptr1' and not
> >> even a VMA there.  There's nothing to stop a new VMA from going in,
> >> installing a *new* PTE, but getting data from the stale TLB entry that
> >> still hasn't been flushed.
> >
> > Thank you for the explanation.  I got you.  I think I could handle the
> > case through a new flag in vma or something indicating LUF has deferred
> > necessary TLB flush for it during unmapping so that mmu_gather mechanism
> > can be aware of it.  Of course, the performance change should be checked
> > again.  Thoughts?
> 
> I suggest you to start with the simple case.  That is, only support page
> reclaiming and migration.  A TLB flushing can be enforced during unmap
> with something similar as flush_tlb_batched_pending().

While reading flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm), I found it already performs
TLB flush for the target mm, if set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm) has been
hit at least once since the last flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm).

Since LUF also relies on set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm), it's going to
perform TLB flush required, in flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm) during
munmap().  So it looks safe to me with regard to munmap() already.

Is there something that I'm missing?

JFYI, regarding to mmap(), I have reworked on fault handler to give up
luf when needed in a better way.

	Byungchul

> --
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying