From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] KVM: x86: Provide paravirtualized flush_tlb_multi()
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:37:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrW2kudQ-nt7KFKRizNjBAzDVfLW7qQRJmkuigSmsYBFhg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A52332CE-80A2-4705-ABB0-3CDDB7AEC889@vmware.com>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:30 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:41 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>> On Jun 25, 2019, at 8:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 7:39 PM Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 25, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/12/19 11:48 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>>>>> Support the new interface of flush_tlb_multi, which also flushes the
> >>>>>> local CPU's TLB, instead of flush_tlb_others that does not. This
> >>>>>> interface is more performant since it parallelize remote and local TLB
> >>>>>> flushes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The actual implementation of flush_tlb_multi() is almost identical to
> >>>>>> that of flush_tlb_others().
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This confused me a bit. I thought we didn't support paravirtualized
> >>>>> flush_tlb_multi() from reading earlier in the series.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But, it seems like that might be Xen-only and doesn't apply to KVM and
> >>>>> paravirtualized KVM has no problem supporting flush_tlb_multi(). Is
> >>>>> that right? It might be good to include some of that background in the
> >>>>> changelog to set the context.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’ll try to improve the change-logs a bit. There is no inherent reason for
> >>>> PV TLB-flushers not to implement their own flush_tlb_multi(). It is left
> >>>> for future work, and here are some reasons:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Hyper-V/Xen TLB-flushing code is not very simple
> >>>> 2. I don’t have a proper setup
> >>>> 3. I am lazy
> >>>
> >>> In the long run, I think that we're going to want a way for one CPU to
> >>> do a remote flush and then, with appropriate locking, update the
> >>> tlb_gen fields for the remote CPU. Getting this right may be a bit
> >>> nontrivial.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by “do a remote flush”?
> >
> > I mean a PV-assisted flush on a CPU other than the CPU that started
> > it. If you look at flush_tlb_func_common(), it's doing some work that
> > is rather fancier than just flushing the TLB. By replacing it with
> > just a pure flush on Xen or Hyper-V, we're losing the potential CR3
> > switch and this bit:
> >
> > /* Both paths above update our state to mm_tlb_gen. */
> > this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[loaded_mm_asid].tlb_gen, mm_tlb_gen);
> >
> > Skipping the former can hurt idle performance, although we should
> > consider just disabling all the lazy optimizations on systems with PV
> > flush. (And I've asked Intel to help us out here in future hardware.
> > I have no idea what the result of asking will be.) Skipping the
> > cpu_tlbstate write means that we will do unnecessary flushes in the
> > future, and that's not doing us any favors.
> >
> > In principle, we should be able to do something like:
> >
> > flush_tlb_multi(...);
> > for(each CPU that got flushed) {
> > spin_lock(something appropriate?);
> > per_cpu_write(cpu, cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[loaded_mm_asid].tlb_gen, f->new_tlb_gen);
> > spin_unlock(...);
> > }
> >
> > with the caveat that it's more complicated than this if the flush is a
> > partial flush, and that we'll want to check that the ctx_id still
> > matches, etc.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Let me check that I got it right.
>
> You want to optimize cases in which:
>
> 1. A virtual machine
Yes.
>
> 2. Which issues mtultiple (remote) TLB shootdowns
Yes. Or just one followed by a context switch. Right now it's
suboptimal with just two vCPUs and a single remote flush. If CPU 0
does a remote PV flush of CPU1 and then CPU1 context switches away
from the running mm and back, it will do an unnecessary flush on the
way back because the tlb_gen won't match.
>
> 2. To remote vCPU which is preempted by the hypervisor
Yes, or even one that isn't preempted.
>
> 4. And unlike KVM, the hypervisor does not provide facilities for the VM to
> know which vCPU is preempted, and atomically request TLB flush when the vCPU
> is scheduled.
>
I'm not sure this makes much difference to the case I'm thinking of.
All this being said, do we currently have any system that supports
PCID *and* remote flushes? I guess KVM has some mechanism, but I'm
not that familiar with its exact capabilities. If I remember right,
Hyper-V doesn't expose PCID yet.
> Right?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-13 6:48 [PATCH 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes and other improvements Nadav Amit
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 1/9] smp: Remove smp_call_function() and on_each_cpu() return values Nadav Amit
2019-06-23 12:32 ` [tip:smp/hotplug] " tip-bot for Nadav Amit
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 2/9] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many() Nadav Amit
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 3/9] x86/mm/tlb: Refactor common code into flush_tlb_on_cpus() Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:07 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 1:57 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:29 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 2:35 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:00 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 3:32 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-26 3:48 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 5/9] x86/mm/tlb: Optimize local TLB flushes Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:36 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 16:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-26 16:39 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 16:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 6/9] KVM: x86: Provide paravirtualized flush_tlb_multi() Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:40 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 2:39 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-26 3:41 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-26 6:30 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 16:37 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2019-06-26 17:41 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2019-06-26 18:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 7/9] smp: Do not mark call_function_data as shared Nadav Amit
2019-06-23 12:31 ` [tip:smp/hotplug] " tip-bot for Nadav Amit
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 8/9] x86/tlb: Privatize cpu_tlbstate Nadav Amit
2019-06-14 15:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2019-06-17 17:10 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:52 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 1:22 ` Nadav Amit
2019-06-26 3:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-13 6:48 ` [PATCH 9/9] x86/apic: Use non-atomic operations when possible Nadav Amit
2019-06-23 12:16 ` [tip:x86/apic] " tip-bot for Nadav Amit
2019-06-25 21:58 ` [PATCH 9/9] " Dave Hansen
2019-06-25 22:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-06-23 12:37 ` [PATCH 0/9] x86: Concurrent TLB flushes and other improvements Thomas Gleixner
2019-06-25 22:02 ` Dave Hansen
2019-06-26 1:34 ` Nadav Amit
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=CALCETrW2kudQ-nt7KFKRizNjBAzDVfLW7qQRJmkuigSmsYBFhg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).