[PATCH 4/7] x86,tlb: make lazy TLB mode lazier

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Thu, 2018-07-19 at 10:04 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital.net> wrote:
> > [I added PeterZ and Vitaly -- can you see any way in which this would
> > break something obscure?  I don't.]

Added Nick and Aneesh. We do have HW remote flushes on powerpc.

> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> > > I guess we can skip both switch_ldt and load_mm_cr4 if real_prev equals
> > > next?
> > 
> > Yes, AFAICS.
> > 
> > > 
> > > On to the lazy TLB mm_struct refcounting stuff :)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Which refcount?  mm_users shouldn’t be hot, so I assume you’re talking about
> > > > mm_count. My suggestion is to get rid of mm_count instead of trying to
> > > > optimize it.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you have any suggestions on how? :)
> > > 
> > > The TLB shootdown sent at __exit_mm time does not get rid of the
> > > kernelthread->active_mm
> > > pointer pointing at the mm that is exiting.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ah, but that's conceptually very easy to fix.  Add a #define like
> > ARCH_NO_TASK_ACTIVE_MM.  Then just get rid of active_mm if that
> > #define is set.  After some grepping, there are very few users.  The
> > only nontrivial ones are the ones in kernel/ and mm/mmu_context.c that
> > are involved in the rather complicated dance of refcounting active_mm.
> > If that field goes away, it doesn't need to be refcounted.  Instead, I
> > think the refcounting can get replaced with something like:
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Release any arch-internal references to mm.  Only called when
> > mm_users is zero
> >  * and all tasks using mm have either been switch_mm()'d away or have had
> >  * enter_lazy_tlb() called.
> >  */
> > extern void arch_shoot_down_dead_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > 
> > which the kernel calls in __mmput() after tearing down all the page
> > tables.  The body can be something like:
> > 
> > if (WARN_ON(cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(...), ...)) {
> >   /* send an IPI.  Maybe just call tlb_flush_remove_tables() */
> > }
> > 
> > (You'll also have to fix up the highly questionable users in
> > arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_64.c, but that's easy.)
> > 
> > Does all that make sense?  Basically, as I understand it, the
> > expensive atomic ops you're seeing are all pointless because they're
> > enabling an optimization that hasn't actually worked for a long time,
> > if ever.
> 
> Hmm.  Xen PV has a big hack in xen_exit_mmap(), which is called from
> arch_exit_mmap(), I think.  It's a heavier weight version of more or
> less the same thing that arch_shoot_down_dead_mm() would be, except
> that it happens before exit_mmap().  But maybe Xen actually has the
> right idea.  In other words, rather doing the big pagetable free in
> exit_mmap() while there may still be other CPUs pointing at the page
> tables, the other order might make more sense.  So maybe, if
> ARCH_NO_TASK_ACTIVE_MM is set, arch_exit_mmap() should be responsible
> for getting rid of all secret arch references to the mm.
> 
> Hmm.  ARCH_FREE_UNUSED_MM_IMMEDIATELY might be a better name.
> 
> I added some more arch maintainers.  The idea here is that, on x86 at
> least, task->active_mm and all its refcounting is pure overhead.  When
> a process exits, __mmput() gets called, but the core kernel has a
> longstanding "optimization" in which other tasks (kernel threads and
> idle tasks) may have ->active_mm pointing at this mm.  This is nasty,
> complicated, and hurts performance on large systems, since it requires
> extra atomic operations whenever a CPU switches between real users
> threads and idle/kernel threads.
> 
> It's also almost completely worthless on x86 at least, since __mmput()
> frees pagetables, and that operation *already* forces a remote TLB
> flush, so we might as well zap all the active_mm references at the
> same time.
> 
> But arm64 has real HW remote flushes.  Does arm64 actually benefit
> from the active_mm optimization?  What happens on arm64 when a process
> exits?  How about s390?  I suspect that x390 has rather larger systems
> than arm64, where the cost of the reference counting can be much
> higher.
> 
> (Also, Rik, x86 on Hyper-V has remote flushes, too. How does that
> interact with your previous patch set?)