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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CA1C2D0EA for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69BE20768 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:01:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727302AbgDHJBQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 05:01:16 -0400 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:12624 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726663AbgDHJBP (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Apr 2020 05:01:15 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 58A6D33585B02A6E0622; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:01:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.220.25) by DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:01:01 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to flush_pmd_tlb_range From: Zhenyu Ye To: Peter Zijlstra CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20200331142927.1237-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331142927.1237-5-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331151331.GS20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200401122004.GE20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53675fb9-21c7-5309-07b8-1bbc1e775f9b@huawei.com> <20200402163849.GM20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: <1770a141-3c97-94df-eac9-2d1f537516b1@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:00:58 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.173.220.25] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On 2020/4/3 13:14, Zhenyu Ye wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2020/4/3 0:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:24:04PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote: >>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I notice that you used >>> `tlb_end_vma` replace `flush_tlb_range`, which will call `tlb_flush`, >>> then finally call `flush_tlb_range` in generic code. However, some >>> architectures define tlb_end_vma|tlb_flush|flush_tlb_range themselves, >>> so this may cause problems. >>> >>> For example, in s390, it defines: >>> >>> #define tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma) do { } while (0) >>> >>> And it doesn't define it's own flush_pmd_tlb_range(). So there will be >>> a mistake if we changed flush_pmd_tlb_range() using tlb_end_vma(). >>> >>> Is this really a problem or something I understand wrong ? >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is a no-op, then tlb_finish_mmu() will do: >> tlb_flush_mmu() -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() -> tlb_flush() >> >> And s390 has tlb_flush(). >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is not a no-op and it calls tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(), >> then tlb_finish_mmu()'s invocation of tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() will >> terniate early due o no flags set. >> >> IOW, it should all just work. >> >> >> FYI the whole tlb_{start,end}_vma() thing is a only needed when the >> architecture doesn't implement tlb_flush() and instead default to using >> flush_tlb_range(), at which point we need to provide a 'fake' vma. >> >> At the time I audited all architectures and they only look at VM_EXEC >> (to do $I invalidation) and VM_HUGETLB (for pmd level invalidations), >> but I forgot which architectures that were. > > Many architectures, such as alpha, arc, arm and so on. > I really understand why you hate making vma->vm_flags more important for > tlbi :). > >> But that is all legacy code; eventually we'll get all archs a native >> tlb_flush() and this can go away. >> > > Thanks for your reply. Currently, to enable the TTL feature, extending > the flush_*tlb_range() may be more convenient. > I will send a formal PATCH soon. > > Thanks, > Zhenyu > I had sent [PATCH v1] a few days ago[1]. Do you have time to review my changes? Are those changes appropriate? Waiting for your suggestion. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200403090048.938-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com/ Thanks, Zhenyu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zhenyu Ye Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to flush_pmd_tlb_range Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:00:58 +0800 Message-ID: <1770a141-3c97-94df-eac9-2d1f537516b1@huawei.com> References: <20200331142927.1237-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331142927.1237-5-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331151331.GS20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200401122004.GE20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53675fb9-21c7-5309-07b8-1bbc1e775f9b@huawei.com> <20200402163849.GM20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com, arnd@arndb.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, maz@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, yuzhao@google.com, Dave.Martin@arm.com, steven.price@arm.com, broonie@kernel.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, corbet@lwn.net, vgupta@synopsys.com, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, arm@kernel.org, xiexiangyou@huawei.com, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On 2020/4/3 13:14, Zhenyu Ye wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2020/4/3 0:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:24:04PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote: >>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I notice that you used >>> `tlb_end_vma` replace `flush_tlb_range`, which will call `tlb_flush`, >>> then finally call `flush_tlb_range` in generic code. However, some >>> architectures define tlb_end_vma|tlb_flush|flush_tlb_range themselves, >>> so this may cause problems. >>> >>> For example, in s390, it defines: >>> >>> #define tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma) do { } while (0) >>> >>> And it doesn't define it's own flush_pmd_tlb_range(). So there will be >>> a mistake if we changed flush_pmd_tlb_range() using tlb_end_vma(). >>> >>> Is this really a problem or something I understand wrong ? >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is a no-op, then tlb_finish_mmu() will do: >> tlb_flush_mmu() -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() -> tlb_flush() >> >> And s390 has tlb_flush(). >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is not a no-op and it calls tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(), >> then tlb_finish_mmu()'s invocation of tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() will >> terniate early due o no flags set. >> >> IOW, it should all just work. >> >> >> FYI the whole tlb_{start,end}_vma() thing is a only needed when the >> architecture doesn't implement tlb_flush() and instead default to using >> flush_tlb_range(), at which point we need to provide a 'fake' vma. >> >> At the time I audited all architectures and they only look at VM_EXEC >> (to do $I invalidation) and VM_HUGETLB (for pmd level invalidations), >> but I forgot which architectures that were. > > Many architectures, such as alpha, arc, arm and so on. > I really understand why you hate making vma->vm_flags more important for > tlbi :). > >> But that is all legacy code; eventually we'll get all archs a native >> tlb_flush() and this can go away. >> > > Thanks for your reply. Currently, to enable the TTL feature, extending > the flush_*tlb_range() may be more convenient. > I will send a formal PATCH soon. > > Thanks, > Zhenyu > I had sent [PATCH v1] a few days ago[1]. Do you have time to review my changes? Are those changes appropriate? Waiting for your suggestion. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200403090048.938-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com/ Thanks, Zhenyu 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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552E1C2BA1B for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0600220768 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 09:01:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="E0jCDndi" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0600220768 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:References:To:From:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description :Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=BbeIXT9MXXOInzed/B3acxZwbrpjmdCQDJUNYP/AHWg=; b=E0jCDndizzBEUM LauAfyYo934fKOEF17CqZk7k0yM+eCefEuziIqnrToNVaS6o7o34O6k1qGxduP0cm87Ee6f8lSwAH NChBJdWeeZ+ssECNkOU1PwgkqG+ZfNM2HiGLaVDox/U2g4iZNraKcMrQ+1M4adjp1W/3/wtiyeuFB Rrcn4pbIxVrxBFnn7/mU2z4tvhrwxswhF8ZYZ016eMs/AiBBeLRELfIg7mA7uFHx5XVJ9eSZIPbGK E29EU+cSOQ7XUXVL7L/aKlFY9oPwFKW1/fsBClo1jGvBCnlAIe2WkHlxuk1IOrRItIGKJN3015kAS 6lT2W/o0GJXy7RXJfPdw==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jM6aP-0007wS-6T; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:01:29 +0000 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190] helo=huawei.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jM6aJ-0007l6-3A for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:01:25 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 58A6D33585B02A6E0622; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:01:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.173.220.25) by DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:01:01 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 4/8] mm: tlb: Pass struct mmu_gather to flush_pmd_tlb_range From: Zhenyu Ye To: Peter Zijlstra References: <20200331142927.1237-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331142927.1237-5-yezhenyu2@huawei.com> <20200331151331.GS20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200401122004.GE20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <53675fb9-21c7-5309-07b8-1bbc1e775f9b@huawei.com> <20200402163849.GM20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: <1770a141-3c97-94df-eac9-2d1f537516b1@huawei.com> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 17:00:58 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [10.173.220.25] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200408_020123_321240_EF0F7524 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 12.88 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, guohanjun@huawei.com, will@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, yuzhao@google.com, corbet@lwn.net, maz@kernel.org, steven.price@arm.com, arm@kernel.org, Dave.Martin@arm.com, arnd@arndb.de, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, zhangshaokun@hisilicon.com, broonie@kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, kuhn.chenqun@huawei.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, xiexiangyou@huawei.com, tony.luck@intel.com, vgupta@synopsys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Peter, On 2020/4/3 13:14, Zhenyu Ye wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 2020/4/3 0:38, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 07:24:04PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote: >>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I notice that you used >>> `tlb_end_vma` replace `flush_tlb_range`, which will call `tlb_flush`, >>> then finally call `flush_tlb_range` in generic code. However, some >>> architectures define tlb_end_vma|tlb_flush|flush_tlb_range themselves, >>> so this may cause problems. >>> >>> For example, in s390, it defines: >>> >>> #define tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma) do { } while (0) >>> >>> And it doesn't define it's own flush_pmd_tlb_range(). So there will be >>> a mistake if we changed flush_pmd_tlb_range() using tlb_end_vma(). >>> >>> Is this really a problem or something I understand wrong ? >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is a no-op, then tlb_finish_mmu() will do: >> tlb_flush_mmu() -> tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() -> tlb_flush() >> >> And s390 has tlb_flush(). >> >> If tlb_end_vma() is not a no-op and it calls tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly(), >> then tlb_finish_mmu()'s invocation of tlb_flush_mmu_tlbonly() will >> terniate early due o no flags set. >> >> IOW, it should all just work. >> >> >> FYI the whole tlb_{start,end}_vma() thing is a only needed when the >> architecture doesn't implement tlb_flush() and instead default to using >> flush_tlb_range(), at which point we need to provide a 'fake' vma. >> >> At the time I audited all architectures and they only look at VM_EXEC >> (to do $I invalidation) and VM_HUGETLB (for pmd level invalidations), >> but I forgot which architectures that were. > > Many architectures, such as alpha, arc, arm and so on. > I really understand why you hate making vma->vm_flags more important for > tlbi :). > >> But that is all legacy code; eventually we'll get all archs a native >> tlb_flush() and this can go away. >> > > Thanks for your reply. Currently, to enable the TTL feature, extending > the flush_*tlb_range() may be more convenient. > I will send a formal PATCH soon. > > Thanks, > Zhenyu > I had sent [PATCH v1] a few days ago[1]. Do you have time to review my changes? Are those changes appropriate? Waiting for your suggestion. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200403090048.938-1-yezhenyu2@huawei.com/ Thanks, Zhenyu _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel