On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:36 AM Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> XPFO flushes kernel space TLB entries for pages that are now mapped
> in userspace on not only the current CPU but also all other CPUs
> synchronously. Processes on each core allocating pages causes a
> flood of IPI messages to all other cores to flush TLB entries.
> Many of these messages are to flush the entire TLB on the core if
> the number of entries being flushed from local core exceeds
> tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling. The cost of TLB flush caused by
> unmapping pages from physmap goes up dramatically on machines with
> high core count.
>
> This patch flushes relevant TLB entries for current process or
> entire TLB depending upon number of entries for the current CPU
> and posts a pending TLB flush on all other CPUs when a page is
> unmapped from kernel space and mapped in userspace. Each core
> checks the pending TLB flush flag for itself on every context
> switch, flushes its TLB if the flag is set and clears it.
> This patch potentially aggregates multiple TLB flushes into one.
> This has very significant impact especially on machines with large
> core counts.
Why is this a reasonable strategy?
> +void xpfo_flush_tlb_kernel_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> +{
> + struct cpumask tmp_mask;
> +
> + /*
> + * Balance as user space task's flush, a bit conservative.
> + * Do a local flush immediately and post a pending flush on all
> + * other CPUs. Local flush can be a range flush or full flush
> + * depending upon the number of entries to be flushed. Remote
> + * flushes will be done by individual processors at the time of
> + * context switch and this allows multiple flush requests from
> + * other CPUs to be batched together.
> + */
I don't like this function at all. A core function like this is a
contract of sorts between the caller and the implementation. There is
no such thing as an "xpfo" flush, and this function's behavior isn't
at all well defined. For flush_tlb_kernel_range(), I can tell you
exactly what that function does, and the implementation is either
correct or incorrect. With this function, I have no idea what is
actually required, and I can't possibly tell whether it's correct.
As far as I can see, xpfo_flush_tlb_kernel_range() actually means
"flush this range on this CPU right now, and flush it on remote CPUs
eventually". It would be valid, but probably silly, to flush locally
and to never flush at all on remote CPUs. This makes me wonder what
the point is.
