[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
On 03/07/2019 18:02, Nadav Amit wrote: >> On Jul 3, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 03.07.19 01:51, Nadav Amit wrote: >>> To improve TLB shootdown performance, flush the remote and local TLBs >>> concurrently. Introduce flush_tlb_multi() that does so. Introduce >>> paravirtual versions of flush_tlb_multi() for KVM, Xen and hyper-v (Xen >>> and hyper-v are only compile-tested). >>> While the updated smp infrastructure is capable of running a function on >>> a single local core, it is not optimized for this case. The multiple >>> function calls and the indirect branch introduce some overhead, and >>> might make local TLB flushes slower than they were before the recent >>> changes. >>> Before calling the SMP infrastructure, check if only a local TLB flush >>> is needed to restore the lost performance in this common case. This >>> requires to check mm_cpumask() one more time, but unless this mask is >>> updated very frequently, this should impact performance negatively. >>> Cc: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: linux-hyperv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> arch/x86/hyperv/mmu.c | 13 +++--- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt.h | 6 +-- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/paravirt_types.h | 4 +- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 9 ++-- >>> arch/x86/include/asm/trace/hyperv.h | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 11 +++-- >>> arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c | 2 +- >>> arch/x86/mm/tlb.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++------- >>> arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c | 20 ++++++--- >>> include/trace/events/xen.h | 2 +- >>> 10 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) >> ... >> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c b/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c >>> index beb44e22afdf..19e481e6e904 100644 >>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/mmu_pv.c >>> @@ -1355,8 +1355,8 @@ static void xen_flush_tlb_one_user(unsigned long addr) >>> preempt_enable(); >>> } >>> -static void xen_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpus, >>> - const struct flush_tlb_info *info) >>> +static void xen_flush_tlb_multi(const struct cpumask *cpus, >>> + const struct flush_tlb_info *info) >>> { >>> struct { >>> struct mmuext_op op; >>> @@ -1366,7 +1366,7 @@ static void xen_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask >>> *cpus, >>> const size_t mc_entry_size = sizeof(args->op) + >>> sizeof(args->mask[0]) * BITS_TO_LONGS(num_possible_cpus()); >>> - trace_xen_mmu_flush_tlb_others(cpus, info->mm, info->start, info->end); >>> + trace_xen_mmu_flush_tlb_multi(cpus, info->mm, info->start, info->end); >>> if (cpumask_empty(cpus)) >>> return; /* nothing to do */ >>> @@ -1375,9 +1375,17 @@ static void xen_flush_tlb_others(const struct >>> cpumask *cpus, >>> args = mcs.args; >>> args->op.arg2.vcpumask = to_cpumask(args->mask); >>> - /* Remove us, and any offline CPUS. */ >>> + /* Flush locally if needed and remove us */ >>> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), to_cpumask(args->mask))) { >>> + local_irq_disable(); >>> + flush_tlb_func_local(info); >> I think this isn't the correct function for PV guests. >> >> In fact it should be much easier: just don't clear the own cpu from the >> mask, that's all what's needed. The hypervisor is just fine having the >> current cpu in the mask and it will do the right thing. > Thanks. I will do so in v3. I don’t think Hyper-V people would want to do > the same, unfortunately, since it would induce VM-exit on TLB flushes. Why do you believe the vmexit matters? You're talking one anyway for the IPI. Intel only have virtualised self-IPI, and while AMD do have working non-self IPIs, you still take a vmexit anyway if any destination vcpu isn't currently running in non-root mode (IIRC). At that point, you might as well have the hypervisor do all the hard work via a multi-cpu shootdown/flush hypercall, rather than trying to arrange it locally. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |