[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 13/37] mm: implement speculative handling in __handle_mm_fault().

    > On Apr 29, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Matthew Wilcox <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 05:05:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
    >>> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 5:02 PM Michel Lespinasse <> wrote:
    >>> Thanks Paul for confirming / clarifying this. BTW, it would be good to
    >>> add this to the rcu header files, just so people have something to
    >>> reference to when they depend on such behavior (like fast GUP
    >>> currently does).
    >> Or, even better, fast GUP could add an explicit RCU read lock.
    >>> Going back to my patch. I don't need to protect against THP splitting
    >>> here, as I'm only handling the small page case. So when
    >>> MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE is enabled, I *think* I could get away with
    >>> using only an rcu read lock, instead of disabling interrupts which
    >>> implicitly creates the rcu read lock. I'm not sure which way to go -
    >>> fast GUP always disables interrupts regardless of the
    >>> MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE setting, and I think there is a case to be
    >>> made for following the fast GUP stes rather than trying to be smarter.
    >> How about adding some little helpers:
    >> lockless_page_walk_begin();
    >> lockless_page_walk_end();
    >> these turn into RCU read locks if MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE and into
    >> irqsave otherwise. And they're somewhat self-documenting.
    > One of the worst things we can do while holding a spinlock is take a
    > cache miss because we then delay for several thousand cycles to wait for
    > the cache line. That gives every other CPU a really long opportunity
    > to slam into the spinlock and things go downhill fast at that point.
    > We've even seen patches to do things like read A, take lock L, then read
    > A to avoid the cache miss while holding the lock.
    > What sort of performance effect would it have to free page tables
    > under RCU for all architectures? It's painful on s390 & powerpc because
    > different tables share the same struct page, but I have to believe that's
    > a solvable problem.

    The IPI locking mechanism is entirely useless on any architecture that wants to do paravirt shootdowns, so this seems like a good strategy to me.
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-04-29 20:05    [W:2.799 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site