[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 4/9] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 05:58:32PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: >> @@ -709,8 +716,9 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask >> *cpumask, >> * doing a speculative memory access. >> */ >> if (info->freed_tables) { >> - smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote, >> - (void *)info, 1); >> + __smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote, >> + flush_tlb_func_local, >> + (void *)info, 1); >> } else { >> /* >> * Although we could have used on_each_cpu_cond_mask(), >> @@ -737,7 +745,8 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask >> *cpumask, >> if (tlb_is_not_lazy(cpu)) >> __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cond_cpumask); >> } >> - smp_call_function_many(cond_cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote, >> + __smp_call_function_many(cond_cpumask, flush_tlb_func_remote, >> + flush_tlb_func_local, >> (void *)info, 1); >> } >> } > > Do we really need that _local/_remote distinction? ISTR you had a patch > that frobbed flush_tlb_info into the csd and that gave space > constraints, but I'm not seeing that here (probably a wise, get stuff > merged etc..). > > struct __call_single_data { > struct llist_node llist; /* 0 8 */ > smp_call_func_t func; /* 8 8 */ > void * info; /* 16 8 */ > unsigned int flags; /* 24 4 */ > > /* size: 32, cachelines: 1, members: 4 */ > /* padding: 4 */ > /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */ > }; > > struct flush_tlb_info { > struct mm_struct * mm; /* 0 8 */ > long unsigned int start; /* 8 8 */ > long unsigned int end; /* 16 8 */ > u64 new_tlb_gen; /* 24 8 */ > unsigned int stride_shift; /* 32 4 */ > bool freed_tables; /* 36 1 */ > > /* size: 40, cachelines: 1, members: 6 */ > /* padding: 3 */ > /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */ > }; > > IIRC what you did was make void *__call_single_data::info the last > member and a union until the full cacheline size (64). Given the above > that would get us 24 bytes for csd, leaving us 40 for that > flush_tlb_info. > > But then we can still do something like the below, which doesn't change > things and still gets rid of that dual function crud, simplifying > smp_call_function_many again. > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h > @@ -546,8 +546,9 @@ struct flush_tlb_info { > unsigned long start; > unsigned long end; > u64 new_tlb_gen; > - unsigned int stride_shift; > - bool freed_tables; > + unsigned int cpu; > + unsigned short stride_shift; > + unsigned char freed_tables; > }; > > #define local_flush_tlb() __flush_tlb() > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c > @@ -659,6 +659,27 @@ static void flush_tlb_func_remote(void * > flush_tlb_func_common(f, false, TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN); > } > > +static void flush_tlb_func(void *info) > +{ > + const struct flush_tlb_info *f = info; > + enum tlb_flush_reason reason = TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN; > + bool local = false; > + > + if (f->cpu == smp_processor_id()) { > + local = true; > + reason = (f->mm == NULL) ? TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN : > TLB_LOCAL_MM_SHOOTDOWN; > + } else { > + inc_irq_stat(irq_tlb_count); > + > + if (f->mm && f->mm != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm)) > + return; > + > + count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_REMOTE_FLUSH_RECEIVED); > + } > + > + flush_tlb_func_common(f, local, reason); > +} > + > static bool tlb_is_not_lazy(int cpu) > { > return !per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate_shared.is_lazy, cpu); Nice! I will add it on top, if you don’t mind (instead squashing it). The original decision to have local/remote functions was mostly to provide the generality. I would change the last argument of __smp_call_function_many() from “wait” to “flags” that would indicate whether to run the function locally, since I don’t want to change the semantics of smp_call_function_many() and decide whether to run the function locally purely based on the mask. Let me know if you disagree. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |