fsl booke MM vs. SMP questions
Benjamin Herrenschmidt
benh at kernel.crashing.org
Tue May 22 08:07:52 EST 2007
> > The tlb miss handler does:
> >
> > - tlbbusy = 1
> > - barrier (make sure the following read is in order vs. the previous
> > store to tlbbusy)
> > - read linux PTE value
> > - write it to the HW TLB
>
> and write the linux PTE with referenced bit?
I've kept the reference bit rewrite out of that pseudo-code because I
was approaching a different issue but yes. The idea i have there is to
do break down the linux PTE operation that way:
1 - rX = read PTE value (normal load)
2 - if (!_PAGE_PRESENT)) -> out
3 - rY = rX | _PAGE_ACCESSED
4 - if (rX != rY)
5 - rZ = lwarx PTE value
6 - if (rZ != rX)
7 - stdcx. PTE, rZ (rewrite just read value to clear reserv)
8 - goto 1 (try again)
9 - stdcx. PTE, rY
10 - if failed -> goto 1 (try again)
11 - that's it !
In addition, I suppose performance can be improved by also dealing with
dirty bit right in the TLB refill if the access is a write and the page
is writeable rather than taking a double fault.
> > - appropriate sync
> > - tlbbusy = 0
> >
> > Now, the tlb invalidation code (which can use a batch to be even more
> > efficient, see how 64 bits or x86 use batching for TLB invalidations)
> > can then use the fact that the mm carries a cpu bitmask of all CPUs that
> > ever touched that mm and thus can do, after a PTE has changed and before
> > broadcasting an invalidation:
>
> How to interlock this PTE change with the PTE change of tlb miss?
Look at pgtables-ppc32.h. PTE changes done by linux are atomic. If you
use the procedure I outlined above, you will also have PTE modifications
done by the TLB miss handler be atomic, though you also skip the atomic
bit when not necessary (when _PAGE_ACCESSED is already set for example).
Thus, the situation is basically that linux PTE changes need to
- update the PTE
- barrier
- make sure that change is visible to all other CPUs and that
they all have been out of a TLB miss handler at least once
which is what my proposed algorithm does
- broadcast invalidation
> > - make a local copy "mask" of the mm->cpu_vm_mask
> > - clear bit for the current cpu from the mask
> > - while there is still a bit in the mask
> > - for each bit in the mask, check if tlbbusy for that cpu is 0
> > -> if 0, clear the bit in the mask
> > - loop until there's nop more bit in the mask
> > - perform the tlbivax
>
> It looks like good idea, but what is the bad things with the batch
> invalidation?
Why bad ?
Batch invalidations allow you to do the whole operation of sync'ing with
other CPUs only once for a whole lot of invalidations:
- clear lots of PTEs
- sync once
- send lots of tlbivax
You don't have to implement batch invalidates but it will improve
performances.
> > In addition, if you have a "local" version of tlbivax (no broadcast),
> > you can do a nice optimisation if after step 2 (clear bit for the
> > current cpu) the mask is already 0 (that means the mm only ever existed
> > on the local cpu), in which case you can do a local tlbivax and return.
>
> The BookE has the "local" version of tlbivax with the tlbwe inst. Yes,
> It actually can reduce the bus traffic.
And is probably faster too :-)
The above method need to also be looked at carefully for the TLB storage
interrupt (that is TLB present but with wrong permission).
Ben.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list