Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/20] x86/mm, mm/vmalloc: Defer flush_tlb_kernel_range() targeting NOHZ_FULL CPUs

From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: "Nadav Amit" <namit@vmware.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	"Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Wanpeng Li" <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	"Vitaly Kuznetsov" <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
	"Frederic Weisbecker" <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	"Neeraj Upadhyay" <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
	"Joel Fernandes" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	"Josh Triplett" <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	"Boqun Feng" <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	"Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
	"Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Uladzislau Rezki" <urezki@gmail.com>,
	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Lorenzo Stoakes" <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	"Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	"Jason Baron" <jbaron@akamai.com>,
	"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	"Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	"Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@kernel.org>,
	"Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	"Juerg Haefliger" <juerg.haefliger@canonical.com>,
	"Nicolas Saenz Julienne" <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	"Dan Carpenter" <error27@gmail.com>,
	"Chuang Wang" <nashuiliang@gmail.com>,
	"Yang Jihong" <yangjihong1@huawei.com>,
	"Petr Mladek" <pmladek@suse.com>,
	"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
	"Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
	"Julian Pidancet" <julian.pidancet@oracle.com>,
	"Tom Lendacky" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	"Dionna Glaze" <dionnaglaze@google.com>,
	"Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>,
	"Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	"Daniel Bristot de Oliveira" <bristot@redhat.com>,
	"Marcelo Tosatti" <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	"Yair Podemsky" <ypodemsk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/20] x86/mm, mm/vmalloc: Defer flush_tlb_kernel_range() targeting NOHZ_FULL CPUs
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 15:03:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xhsmhr0owrsv0.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230725132155.GJ3765278@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Sorry, I missed out Dave's email, so now I'm taking my time to page (hah!)
all of this.

On 25/07/23 15:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:40:04AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>> TLB flushes for freed page tables are another game entirely.  The CPU is
>> free to cache any part of the paging hierarchy it wants at any time.
>> It's also free to set accessed and dirty bits at any time, even for
>> instructions that may never execute architecturally.
>>
>> That basically means that if you have *ANY* freed page table page
>> *ANYWHERE* in the page table hierarchy of any CPU at any time ... you're
>> screwed.
>>
>> There's no reasoning about accesses or ordering.  As soon as the CPU
>> does *anything*, it's out to get you.
>>

OK, I feel like I need to go back do some more reading now, but I think I
get the difference. Thanks for spelling it out.

>> You're going to need to do something a lot more radical to deal with
>> free page table pages.
>
> Ha! IIRC the only thing we can reasonably do there is to have strict
> per-cpu page-tables such that NOHZ_FULL CPUs can be isolated. That is,
> as long we the per-cpu tables do not contain -- and have never contained
> -- a particular table page, we can avoid flushing it. Because if it
> never was there, it also couldn't have speculatively loaded it.
>
> Now, x86 doesn't really do per-cpu page tables easily (otherwise we'd
> have done them ages ago) and doing them is going to be *major* surgery
> and pain.
>
> Other than that, we must take the TLBI-IPI when freeing
> page-table-pages.
>
>
> But yeah, I think Nadav is right, vmalloc.c never frees page-tables (or
> at least, I couldn't find it in a hurry either), but if we're going to
> be doing this, then that file must include a very prominent comment
> explaining it must never actually do so either.
>

I also couldn't find any freeing of the page-table-pages, I'll do another
pass and sharpen my quill for a big fat comment.

> Not being able to free page-tables might be a 'problem' if we're going
> to be doing more of HUGE_VMALLOC, because that means it becomes rather
> hard to swizzle from small to large pages.