From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: "qi.fuli@fujitsu.com" <qi.fuli@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"indou.takao@fujitsu.com" <indou.takao@fujitsu.com>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Introduce boot parameter to disable TLB flush instruction within the same inner shareable domain
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:27:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190627102724.vif6zh6zfqktpmjx@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e8fe8faa-72ef-8185-1a9d-dc1bbe0ae15d@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:34:02AM +0000, qi.fuli@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On 6/18/19 2:03 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:32:53PM +0900, Takao Indoh wrote:
> >> From: Takao Indoh <indou.takao@fujitsu.com>
> >>
> >> I found a performance issue related on the implementation of Linux's TLB
> >> flush for arm64.
> >>
> >> When I run a single-threaded test program on moderate environment, it
> >> usually takes 39ms to finish its work. However, when I put a small
> >> apprication, which just calls mprotest() continuously, on one of sibling
> >> cores and run it simultaneously, the test program slows down significantly.
> >> It becomes 49ms(125%) on ThunderX2. I also detected the same problem on
> >> ThunderX1 and Fujitsu A64FX.
> > This is a problem for any applications that share hardware resources with
> > each other, so I don't think it's something we should be too concerned about
> > addressing unless there is a practical DoS scenario, which there doesn't
> > appear to be in this case. It may be that the real answer is "don't call
> > mprotect() in a loop".
> I think there has been a misunderstanding, please let me explain.
> This application is just an example using for reproducing the
> performance issue we found.
> Our original purpose is reducing OS jitter by this series.
> The OS jitter on massively parallel processing systems have been known
> and studied for many years.
> The 2.5% OS jitter can result in over a factor of 20 slowdown for the
> same application [1].
I think it's worth pointing out that the system in question was neither
ARM-based nor running Linux, so I'd be cautious in applying the conclusions
of that paper directly to our TLB invalidation code. Furthermore, the noise
being generated in their experiments uses a timer interrupt, which has a
/vastly/ different profile to a DVM message in terms of both system impact
and frequency.
> Though it may be an extreme example, reducing the OS jitter has been an
> issue in HPC environment.
>
> [1] Ferreira, Kurt B., Patrick Bridges, and Ron Brightwell.
> "Characterizing application sensitivity to OS interference using
> kernel-level noise injection." Proceedings of the 2008 ACM/IEEE
> conference on Supercomputing. IEEE Press, 2008.
>
> >> I suppose the root cause of this issue is the implementation of Linux's TLB
> >> flush for arm64, especially use of TLBI-is instruction which is a broadcast
> >> to all processor core on the system. In case of the above situation,
> >> TLBI-is is called by mprotect().
> > On the flip side, Linux is providing the hardware with enough information
> > not to broadcast to cores for which the remote TLBs don't have entries
> > allocated for the ASID being invalidated. I would say that the root cause
> > of the issue is that this filtering is not taking place.
>
> Do you mean that the filter should be implemented in hardware?
Yes. If you're building a large system and you care about "jitter", then
you either need to partition it in such a way that sources of noise are
contained, or you need to introduce filters to limit their scope. Rewriting
the low-level memory-management parts of the operating system is a red
herring and imposes a needless burden on everybody else without solving
the real problem, which is that contended use of shared resources doesn't
scale.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-27 10:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 14:32 [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Introduce boot parameter to disable TLB flush instruction within the same inner shareable domain Takao Indoh
2019-06-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] arm64: mm: Restore mm_cpumask (revert commit 38d96287504a ("arm64: mm: kill mm_cpumask usage")) Takao Indoh
2019-07-23 11:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-17 14:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: tlb: Add boot parameter to disable TLB flush within the same inner shareable domain Takao Indoh
2019-07-23 12:11 ` Catalin Marinas
2019-06-17 17:03 ` [PATCH 0/2] arm64: Introduce boot parameter to disable TLB flush instruction " Will Deacon
2019-06-24 10:34 ` qi.fuli
2019-06-27 10:27 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2019-07-03 2:45 ` qi.fuli
2019-07-09 0:25 ` Jon Masters
2019-07-09 0:29 ` Jon Masters
2019-07-09 8:03 ` Will Deacon
2019-07-09 8:07 ` Will Deacon
2019-11-01 9:56 ` qi.fuli
2019-11-01 17:28 ` Will Deacon
2019-11-26 14:26 ` Matthias Brugger
2019-11-26 14:36 ` Will Deacon
2019-12-01 16:02 ` Jon Masters
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190627102724.vif6zh6zfqktpmjx@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=indou.takao@fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qi.fuli@fujitsu.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).