linux_dsm_epyc7002/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c

400 lines
10 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
#include <asm/mmu_context.h>
#include <asm/cache.h>
#include <asm/apic.h>
#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct tlb_state, cpu_tlbstate)
= { &init_mm, 0, };
/*
* Smarter SMP flushing macros.
* c/o Linus Torvalds.
*
* These mean you can really definitely utterly forget about
* writing to user space from interrupts. (Its not allowed anyway).
*
* Optimizations Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
*
* More scalable flush, from Andi Kleen
*
* To avoid global state use 8 different call vectors.
* Each CPU uses a specific vector to trigger flushes on other
* CPUs. Depending on the received vector the target CPUs look into
* the right array slot for the flush data.
*
* With more than 8 CPUs they are hashed to the 8 available
* vectors. The limited global vector space forces us to this right now.
* In future when interrupts are split into per CPU domains this could be
* fixed, at the cost of triggering multiple IPIs in some cases.
*/
union smp_flush_state {
struct {
struct mm_struct *flush_mm;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
unsigned long flush_start;
unsigned long flush_end;
raw_spinlock_t tlbstate_lock;
DECLARE_BITMAP(flush_cpumask, NR_CPUS);
};
char pad[INTERNODE_CACHE_BYTES];
} ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
/* State is put into the per CPU data section, but padded
to a full cache line because other CPUs can access it and we don't
want false sharing in the per cpu data segment. */
static union smp_flush_state flush_state[NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS];
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
static DEFINE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, tlb_vector_offset);
/*
* We cannot call mmdrop() because we are in interrupt context,
* instead update mm->cpu_vm_mask.
*/
void leave_mm(int cpu)
{
struct mm_struct *active_mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm);
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK)
BUG();
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm))) {
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm));
load_cr3(swapper_pg_dir);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(leave_mm);
/*
*
* The flush IPI assumes that a thread switch happens in this order:
* [cpu0: the cpu that switches]
* 1) switch_mm() either 1a) or 1b)
* 1a) thread switch to a different mm
* 1a1) cpu_clear(cpu, old_mm->cpu_vm_mask);
* Stop ipi delivery for the old mm. This is not synchronized with
* the other cpus, but smp_invalidate_interrupt ignore flush ipis
* for the wrong mm, and in the worst case we perform a superfluous
* tlb flush.
* 1a2) set cpu mmu_state to TLBSTATE_OK
* Now the smp_invalidate_interrupt won't call leave_mm if cpu0
* was in lazy tlb mode.
* 1a3) update cpu active_mm
* Now cpu0 accepts tlb flushes for the new mm.
* 1a4) cpu_set(cpu, new_mm->cpu_vm_mask);
* Now the other cpus will send tlb flush ipis.
* 1a4) change cr3.
* 1b) thread switch without mm change
* cpu active_mm is correct, cpu0 already handles
* flush ipis.
* 1b1) set cpu mmu_state to TLBSTATE_OK
* 1b2) test_and_set the cpu bit in cpu_vm_mask.
* Atomically set the bit [other cpus will start sending flush ipis],
* and test the bit.
* 1b3) if the bit was 0: leave_mm was called, flush the tlb.
* 2) switch %%esp, ie current
*
* The interrupt must handle 2 special cases:
* - cr3 is changed before %%esp, ie. it cannot use current->{active_,}mm.
* - the cpu performs speculative tlb reads, i.e. even if the cpu only
* runs in kernel space, the cpu could load tlb entries for user space
* pages.
*
* The good news is that cpu mmu_state is local to each cpu, no
* write/read ordering problems.
*/
/*
* TLB flush IPI:
*
* 1) Flush the tlb entries if the cpu uses the mm that's being flushed.
* 2) Leave the mm if we are in the lazy tlb mode.
*
* Interrupts are disabled.
*/
/*
* FIXME: use of asmlinkage is not consistent. On x86_64 it's noop
* but still used for documentation purpose but the usage is slightly
* inconsistent. On x86_32, asmlinkage is regparm(0) but interrupt
* entry calls in with the first parameter in %eax. Maybe define
* intrlinkage?
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
asmlinkage
#endif
void smp_invalidate_interrupt(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
unsigned int cpu;
unsigned int sender;
union smp_flush_state *f;
cpu = smp_processor_id();
/*
* orig_rax contains the negated interrupt vector.
* Use that to determine where the sender put the data.
*/
sender = ~regs->orig_ax - INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START;
f = &flush_state[sender];
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask)))
goto out;
/*
* This was a BUG() but until someone can quote me the
* line from the intel manual that guarantees an IPI to
* multiple CPUs is retried _only_ on the erroring CPUs
* its staying as a return
*
* BUG();
*/
if (f->flush_mm == this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm)) {
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK) {
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
if (f->flush_end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL
|| !cpu_has_invlpg)
local_flush_tlb();
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
else if (!f->flush_end)
__flush_tlb_single(f->flush_start);
else {
unsigned long addr;
addr = f->flush_start;
while (addr < f->flush_end) {
__flush_tlb_single(addr);
addr += PAGE_SIZE;
}
}
} else
leave_mm(cpu);
}
out:
ack_APIC_irq();
smp_mb__before_clear_bit();
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask));
smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
inc_irq_stat(irq_tlb_count);
}
static void flush_tlb_others_ipi(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end)
{
unsigned int sender;
union smp_flush_state *f;
/* Caller has disabled preemption */
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
sender = this_cpu_read(tlb_vector_offset);
f = &flush_state[sender];
if (nr_cpu_ids > NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS)
raw_spin_lock(&f->tlbstate_lock);
f->flush_mm = mm;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
f->flush_start = start;
f->flush_end = end;
x86: don't call '->send_IPI_mask()' with an empty mask As noted in 83d349f35e1ae72268c5104dbf9ab2ae635425d4 ("x86: don't send an IPI to the empty set of CPU's"), some APIC's will be very unhappy with an empty destination mask. That commit added a WARN_ON() for that case, and avoided the resulting problem, but didn't fix the underlying reason for why those empty mask cases happened. This fixes that, by checking the result of 'cpumask_andnot()' of the current CPU actually has any other CPU's left in the set of CPU's to be sent a TLB flush, and not calling down to the IPI code if the mask is empty. The reason this started happening at all is that we started passing just the CPU mask pointers around in commit 4595f9620 ("x86: change flush_tlb_others to take a const struct cpumask"), and when we did that, the cpumask was no longer thread-local. Before that commit, flush_tlb_mm() used to create it's own copy of 'mm->cpu_vm_mask' and pass that copy down to the low-level flush routines after having tested that it was not empty. But after changing it to just pass down the CPU mask pointer, the lower level TLB flush routines would now get a pointer to that 'mm->cpu_vm_mask', and that could still change - and become empty - after the test due to other CPU's having flushed their own TLB's. See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13933 for details. Tested-by: Thomas Björnell <thomas.bjornell@gmail.com> Cc: stable@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-08-21 23:48:10 +07:00
if (cpumask_andnot(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask), cpumask, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id()))) {
/*
* We have to send the IPI only to
* CPUs affected.
*/
apic->send_IPI_mask(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask),
INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START + sender);
x86: don't call '->send_IPI_mask()' with an empty mask As noted in 83d349f35e1ae72268c5104dbf9ab2ae635425d4 ("x86: don't send an IPI to the empty set of CPU's"), some APIC's will be very unhappy with an empty destination mask. That commit added a WARN_ON() for that case, and avoided the resulting problem, but didn't fix the underlying reason for why those empty mask cases happened. This fixes that, by checking the result of 'cpumask_andnot()' of the current CPU actually has any other CPU's left in the set of CPU's to be sent a TLB flush, and not calling down to the IPI code if the mask is empty. The reason this started happening at all is that we started passing just the CPU mask pointers around in commit 4595f9620 ("x86: change flush_tlb_others to take a const struct cpumask"), and when we did that, the cpumask was no longer thread-local. Before that commit, flush_tlb_mm() used to create it's own copy of 'mm->cpu_vm_mask' and pass that copy down to the low-level flush routines after having tested that it was not empty. But after changing it to just pass down the CPU mask pointer, the lower level TLB flush routines would now get a pointer to that 'mm->cpu_vm_mask', and that could still change - and become empty - after the test due to other CPU's having flushed their own TLB's. See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13933 for details. Tested-by: Thomas Björnell <thomas.bjornell@gmail.com> Cc: stable@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-08-21 23:48:10 +07:00
while (!cpumask_empty(to_cpumask(f->flush_cpumask)))
cpu_relax();
}
f->flush_mm = NULL;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
f->flush_start = 0;
f->flush_end = 0;
if (nr_cpu_ids > NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS)
raw_spin_unlock(&f->tlbstate_lock);
}
void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end)
{
if (is_uv_system()) {
unsigned int cpu;
cpu = smp_processor_id();
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
cpumask = uv_flush_tlb_others(cpumask, mm, start, end, cpu);
if (cpumask)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
flush_tlb_others_ipi(cpumask, mm, start, end);
return;
}
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
flush_tlb_others_ipi(cpumask, mm, start, end);
}
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
static void __cpuinit calculate_tlb_offset(void)
{
int cpu, node, nr_node_vecs, idx = 0;
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
/*
* we are changing tlb_vector_offset for each CPU in runtime, but this
* will not cause inconsistency, as the write is atomic under X86. we
* might see more lock contentions in a short time, but after all CPU's
* tlb_vector_offset are changed, everything should go normal
*
* Note: if NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS % nr_online_nodes !=0, we might
* waste some vectors.
**/
if (nr_online_nodes > NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS)
nr_node_vecs = 1;
else
nr_node_vecs = NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS/nr_online_nodes;
for_each_online_node(node) {
int node_offset = (idx % NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS) *
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
nr_node_vecs;
int cpu_offset = 0;
for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(node)) {
per_cpu(tlb_vector_offset, cpu) = node_offset +
cpu_offset;
cpu_offset++;
cpu_offset = cpu_offset % nr_node_vecs;
}
idx++;
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
}
}
static int __cpuinit tlb_cpuhp_notify(struct notifier_block *n,
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
{
switch (action & 0xf) {
case CPU_ONLINE:
case CPU_DEAD:
calculate_tlb_offset();
}
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
static int __cpuinit init_smp_flush(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flush_state); i++)
raw_spin_lock_init(&flush_state[i].tlbstate_lock);
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 10:07:03 +07:00
calculate_tlb_offset();
hotcpu_notifier(tlb_cpuhp_notify, 0);
return 0;
}
core_initcall(init_smp_flush);
void flush_tlb_current_task(void)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
preempt_disable();
local_flush_tlb();
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
preempt_enable();
}
void flush_tlb_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
preempt_disable();
if (current->active_mm == mm) {
if (current->mm)
local_flush_tlb();
else
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
preempt_enable();
}
#define FLUSHALL_BAR 16
void flush_tlb_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
struct mm_struct *mm;
if (!cpu_has_invlpg || vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB) {
flush_tlb_mm(vma->vm_mm);
return;
}
preempt_disable();
mm = vma->vm_mm;
if (current->active_mm == mm) {
if (current->mm) {
unsigned long addr, vmflag = vma->vm_flags;
unsigned act_entries, tlb_entries = 0;
if (vmflag & VM_EXEC)
tlb_entries = tlb_lli_4k[ENTRIES];
else
tlb_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
act_entries = tlb_entries > mm->total_vm ?
mm->total_vm : tlb_entries;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
if ((end - start)/PAGE_SIZE > act_entries/FLUSHALL_BAR)
local_flush_tlb();
else {
for (addr = start; addr < end;
addr += PAGE_SIZE)
__flush_tlb_single(addr);
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm),
smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm,
start, end);
preempt_enable();
return;
}
} else {
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
}
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
preempt_enable();
}
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
preempt_disable();
if (current->active_mm == mm) {
if (current->mm)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
__flush_tlb_one(start);
else
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 08:02:17 +07:00
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, start, 0UL);
preempt_enable();
}
static void do_flush_tlb_all(void *info)
{
__flush_tlb_all();
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_LAZY)
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
void flush_tlb_all(void)
{
on_each_cpu(do_flush_tlb_all, NULL, 1);
}