From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Bibo Mao <maobibo@loongson.cn>
Cc: "Thomas Bogendoerfer" <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
"Jiaxun Yang" <jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhc@lemote.com>,
"Paul Burton" <paulburton@kernel.org>,
"Dmitry Korotin" <dkorotin@wavecomp.com>,
"Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <f4bug@amsat.org>,
"Stafford Horne" <shorne@gmail.com>,
"Steven Price" <steven.price@arm.com>,
"Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
"Sergei Shtylyov" <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@wdc.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, "David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] mm/memory.c: Update local TLB if PTE entry exists
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 12:22:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200521122211.7450025a41865a67df6a7303@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1590031837-9582-2-git-send-email-maobibo@loongson.cn>
On Thu, 21 May 2020 11:30:35 +0800 Bibo Mao <maobibo@loongson.cn> wrote:
> If two threads concurrently fault at the same address, the thread that
> won the race updates the PTE and its local TLB. For now, the other
> thread gives up, simply does nothing, and continues.
>
> It could happen that this second thread triggers another fault, whereby
> it only updates its local TLB while handling the fault. Instead of
> triggering another fault, let's directly update the local TLB of the
> second thread.
>
> It is only useful to architectures where software can update TLB, it may
> bring out some negative effect if update_mmu_cache is used for other
> purpose also. It seldom happens where multiple threads access the same
> page at the same time, so the negative effect is limited on other arches.
>
> With specjvm2008 workload, smp-race pgfault counts is about 3% to 4%
> of the total pgfault counts by watching /proc/vmstats information
>
I'm sorry to keep thrashing this for so long, but I'd really prefer not
to add any overhead to architectures which don't need it. However,
we're getting somewhere!
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2436,10 +2436,9 @@ static inline bool cow_user_page(struct page *dst, struct page *src,
> if (!likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
> /*
> * Other thread has already handled the fault
> - * and we don't need to do anything. If it's
> - * not the case, the fault will be triggered
> - * again on the same address.
> + * and update local tlb only
> */
> + update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, vmf->pte);
Now, all the patch does is to add new calls to update_mmu_cache().
So can we replace all these with a call to a new
update_mmu_cache_sw_tlb() (or whatever) which is a no-op on
architectures which don't need the additional call?
Also, I wonder about the long-term maintainability. People who
regularly work on this code won't be thinking of this MIPS peculiarity
and it's likely that any new calls to update_mmu_cache_sw_tlb() won't
be added where they should have been. Hopefully copy-and-paste from
the existing code will serve us well. Please do ensure that the
update_mmu_cache_sw_tlb() implementation is carefully commented so
that people can understand where they should (and shouldn't) include
this call.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-21 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-21 3:30 [PATCH v5 1/4] MIPS: Do not flush tlb page when updating PTE entry Bibo Mao
2020-05-21 3:30 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] mm/memory.c: Update local TLB if PTE entry exists Bibo Mao
2020-05-21 19:22 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2020-05-22 8:48 ` maobibo
2020-05-21 3:30 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] mm/memory.c: Add memory read privilege on page fault handling Bibo Mao
2020-05-21 3:30 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] MIPS: mm: add page valid judgement in function pte_modify Bibo Mao
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=20200521122211.7450025a41865a67df6a7303@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dkorotin@wavecomp.com \
--cc=f4bug@amsat.org \
--cc=jiaxun.yang@flygoat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=macro@wdc.com \
--cc=maobibo@loongson.cn \
--cc=paulburton@kernel.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com \
--cc=shorne@gmail.com \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
/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).