On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 8:01 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 1:43 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 5:29 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 4:33 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 9:56 AM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 4:46 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:52 AM Linus Torvalds > > > > > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 5:43 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given we used to have a flush for clear pte young in LRU, right now we are > > > > > > > > moving to nop in almost all cases for the flush unless the address becomes > > > > > > > > young exactly after look_around and before ptep_clear_flush_young_notify. > > > > > > > > It means we are actually dropping flush. So the question is, were we > > > > > > > > overcautious? we actually don't need the flush at all even without mglru? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We stopped flushing the TLB on A bit clears on x86 back in 2014. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See commit b13b1d2d8692 ("x86/mm: In the PTE swapout page reclaim case > > > > > > > clear the accessed bit instead of flushing the TLB"). > > > > > > > > > > > > This is true for x86, RISC-V, powerpc and S390. but it is not true for > > > > > > most platforms. > > > > > > > > > > > > There was an attempt to do the same thing in arm64: > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1793830.html > > > > > > but arm64 still sent a nosync tlbi and depent on a deferred to dsb : > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1794484.html > > > > > > > > > > Barry, you've already answered your own question. > > > > > > > > > > Without commit 07509e10dcc7 arm64: pgtable: Fix pte_accessible(): > > > > > #define pte_accessible(mm, pte) \ > > > > > - (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid_young(pte)) > > > > > + (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid(pte)) > > > > > > > > > > You missed all TLB flushes for PTEs that have gone through > > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() on the reclaim path. But most of the time, > > > > > you got away with it, only occasional app crashes: > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAGsJ_4w6JjuG4rn2P=d974wBOUtXUUnaZKnx+-G6a8_mSROa+Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > Yes. On the arm64 platform, ptep_test_and_clear_young() without flush > > > > can cause random > > > > App to crash. > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() + flush won't have this kind of crashes though. > > > > But after applying commit 07509e10dcc7 arm64: pgtable: Fix > > > > pte_accessible(), on arm64, > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young() without flush won't cause App to crash. > > > > > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), with flush, without commit 07509e10dcc7: OK > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), without flush, with commit 07509e10dcc7: OK > > > > ptep_test_and_clear_young(), without flush, without commit 07509e10dcc7: CRASH > > > > > > I agree -- my question was rhetorical :) > > > > > > I was trying to imply this logic: > > > 1. We cleared the A-bit in PTEs with ptep_test_and_clear_young() > > > 2. We missed TLB flush for those PTEs on the reclaim path, i.e., case > > > 3 (case 1 & 2 guarantee flushes) > > > 3. We saw crashes, but only occasionally > > > > > > Assuming TLB cached those PTEs, we would have seen the crashes more > > > often, which contradicts our observation. So the conclusion is TLB > > > didn't cache them most of the time, meaning flushing TLB just for the > > > sake of the A-bit isn't necessary. > > > > > > > do you think it is safe to totally remove the flush code even for > > > > the original > > > > LRU? > > > > > > Affirmative, based on not only my words, but 3rd parties': > > > 1. Your (indirect) observation > > > 2. Alexander's benchmark: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/BYAPR12MB271295B398729E07F31082A7CFAA0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > 3. The fundamental hardware limitation in terms of the TLB scalability > > > (Fig. 1): https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/osdi02/tech/full_papers/navarro/navarro.pdf > > > > 4. Intel's commit b13b1d2d8692 ("x86/mm: In the PTE swapout page > > reclaim case clear the accessed bit instead of flushing the TLB") > > Hi Yu, > I am going to send a RFC based on the above discussion. > > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c > index 5bcb334cd6f2..7ce6f0b6c330 100644 > --- a/mm/rmap.c > +++ b/mm/rmap.c > @@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static bool folio_referenced_one(struct folio *folio, > } > > if (pvmw.pte) { > - if (ptep_clear_flush_young_notify(vma, address, > + if (ptep_clear_young_notify(vma, address, > pvmw.pte)) { > /* > * Don't treat a reference through Thanks! This might make a difference on my 64 core Altra -- I'll test after you post the RFC.