Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown during page reclamation

From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com>
Cc: yangyicong@hisilicon.com, corbet@lwn.net, peterz@infradead.org,
	arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	darren@os.amperecomputing.com, huzhanyuan@oppo.com,
	lipeifeng@oppo.com, zhangshiming@oppo.com, guojian@oppo.com,
	realmz6@gmail.com, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, xhao@linux.alibaba.com,
	prime.zeng@hisilicon.com, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
	Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: support batched/deferred tlb shootdown during page reclamation
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 16:11:59 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ecd161db-b290-7997-a81e-a0a00bd1c599@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4z=dZbrAUD9jczT08S3qi_ep-h+EK35UfayVk1S+Cnp2A@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/28/22 05:53, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 10:15 PM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2022/9/27 14:16, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> On 9/21/22 14:13, Yicong Yang wrote:
>>>> +static inline bool arch_tlbbatch_should_defer(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    /* for small systems with small number of CPUs, TLB shootdown is cheap */
>>>> +    if (num_online_cpus() <= 4)
>>>
>>> It would be great to have some more inputs from others, whether 4 (which should
>>> to be codified into a macro e.g ARM64_NR_CPU_DEFERRED_TLB, or something similar)
>>> is optimal for an wide range of arm64 platforms.
>>>
> 
> I have tested it on a 4-cpus and 8-cpus machine. but i have no machine
> with 5,6,7
> cores.
> I saw improvement on 8-cpus machines and I found 4-cpus machines don't need
> this patch.
> 
> so it seems safe to have
> if (num_online_cpus()  < 8)
> 
>>
>> Do you prefer this macro to be static or make it configurable through kconfig then
>> different platforms can make choice based on their own situations? It maybe hard to
>> test on all the arm64 platforms.
> 
> Maybe we can have this default enabled on machines with 8 and more cpus and
> provide a tlbflush_batched = on or off to allow users enable or
> disable it according
> to their hardware and products. Similar example: rodata=on or off.

No, sounds bit excessive. Kernel command line options should not be added
for every possible run time switch options.

> 
> Hi Anshuman, Will,  Catalin, Andrew,
> what do you think about this approach?
> 
> BTW, haoxin mentioned another important user scenarios for tlb bach on arm64:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/393d6318-aa38-01ed-6ad8-f9eac89bf0fc@linux.alibaba.com/
> 
> I do believe we need it based on the expensive cost of tlb shootdown in arm64
> even by hardware broadcast.

Alright, for now could we enable ARCH_WANT_BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH selectively
with CONFIG_EXPERT and for num_online_cpus()  > 8 ?