On 7/27/2023 11:28 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 12:21 AM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/26/23 13:40, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 10:44 PM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/26/23 11:26, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 8:49 PM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/25/23 13:55, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:41 AM Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently, in function madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(), the
>>>>>>>> young bit of pte/pmd is cleared notify subscripter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Using notify-able API to make sure the subscripter is signaled about
>>>>>>>> the young bit clearing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> mm/madvise.c | 18 ++----------------
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> index f12933ebcc24..b236e201a738 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -403,14 +403,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - if (pmd_young(orig_pmd)) {
>>>>>>>> - pmdp_invalidate(vma, addr, pmd);
>>>>>>>> - orig_pmd = pmd_mkold(orig_pmd);
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> - set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmd, orig_pmd);
>>>>>>>> - tlb_remove_pmd_tlb_entry(tlb, pmd, addr);
>>>>>>>> - }
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> + pmdp_clear_flush_young_notify(vma, addr, pmd);
>>>>>>>> folio_clear_referenced(folio);
>>>>>>>> folio_test_clear_young(folio);
>>>>>>>> if (folio_test_active(folio))
>>>>>>>> @@ -496,14 +489,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - if (pte_young(ptent)) {
>>>>>>>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
>>>>>>>> - tlb->fullmm);
>>>>>>>> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
>>>>>>>> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
>>>>>>>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>>>>>> - }
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> + ptep_clear_flush_young_notify(vma, addr, pte);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These two places are tricky.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree there is a problem here, i.e., we are not consulting the mmu
>>>>>>> notifier. In fact, we do pageout on VMs on ChromeOS, and it's been a
>>>>>>> known problem to me for a while (not a high priority one).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tlb_remove_tlb_entry() is batched flush, ptep_clear_flush_young() is
>>>>>>> not. But, on x86, we might see a performance improvement since
>>>>>>> ptep_clear_flush_young() doesn't flush TLB at all. On ARM, there might
>>>>>>> be regressions though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd go with ptep_clear_young_notify(), but IIRC, Minchan mentioned he
>>>>>>> prefers flush. So I'll let him chime in.
>>>>>> I am OK with either way even no flush way here is more efficient for
>>>>>> arm64. Let's wait for Minchan's comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, and I don't think there would be any "negative" consequences
>>>>> without tlb flushes when clearing the A-bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we do end up with ptep_clear_young_notify(), please remove
>>>>>>> mmu_gather -- it should have been done in this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose "remove mmu_gather" means to trigger flush tlb operation in
>>>>>> batched way to make sure no stale data in TLB for long time on arm64
>>>>>> platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> In madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(), we only need struct
>>>>> mmu_gather *tlb because of tlb_remove_pmd_tlb_entry(), i.e., flushing
>>>>> tlb after clearing the A-bit. There is no correction, e.g., potential
>>>>> data corruption, involved there.
>>>>
>>>> From https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181029105515.GD14127@xxxxxxx/,
>>>> the reason that arm64 didn't drop whole flush tlb in ptep_clear_flush_young()
>>>> is to prevent the stale data in TLB. I suppose there is no correction issue
>>>> there also.
>>>>
>>>> So why keep stale data in TLB in madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() is fine?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question here.
>> Oh. Sorry for the confusion. I will explain my understanding and
>> question in detail.
>>
>>>
>>> In this patch, you removed tlb_remove_tlb_entry(), so we don't need
>>> struct mmu_gather *tlb any more.
>> Yes. You are right.
>>
>>>
>>> If you are asking why I prefer ptep_clear_young_notify() (no flush),
>>> which also doesn't need tlb_remove_tlb_entry(), then the answer is
>>> that the TLB size doesn't scale like DRAM does: the gap has been
>>> growing exponentially. So there is no way TLB can hold stale entries
>>> long enough to cause a measurable effect on the A-bit. This isn't a
>>> conjecture -- it's been proven conversely: we encountered bugs (almost
>>> every year) caused by missing TLB flushes and resulting in data
>>> corruption. They were never easy to reproduce, meaning stale entries
>>> never stayed long in TLB.
>>
>> when I read https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181029105515.GD14127@xxxxxxx/,
>>
>> my understanding is that arm64 still keep something in ptep_clear_flush_young.
>> The reason is finishing TLB flush by next context-switch to make sure no
>> stale entries in TLB cross next context switch.
>>
>> Should we still keep same behavior (no stable entries in TLB cross next
>> context switch) for madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range()?
>>
>> So two versions work (I assume we should keep same behavior) for me:
>> 1. using xxx_flush_xxx() version. but with possible regression on arm64.
>> 2. using none flush version. But do batched TLB flush.
>
> I see. I don't think we need to flush at all, i.e., the no flush
> version *without* batched TLB flush. So far nobody can actually prove
> that flushing TLB while clearing the A-bit is beneficial, not even in
> theory :)
I will just send the fix for folio_mapcount() (with your reviewed-by) as
it's bug fix and it's better to be merged standalone.
The other three patches need more time for discussion.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
