Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/mmu_gather: send tlb_remove_table_smp_sync IPI only to CPUs in kernel mode

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 01:30:57PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.04.23 20:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:51:52PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 06.04.23 17:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > > > DavidH, what do you thikn about reviving Jann's patches here:
> > > > 
> > > >     https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=2365#c1
> > > > 
> > > > Those are far more invasive, but afaict they seem to do the right thing.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I recall seeing those while discussed on security@xxxxxxxxxx. What we
> > > currently have was (IMHO for good reasons) deemed better to fix the issue,
> > > especially when caring about backports and getting it right.
> > 
> > Yes, and I think that was the right call. However, we can now revisit
> > without having the pressure of a known defect and backport
> > considerations.
> > 
> > > The alternative that was discussed in that context IIRC was to simply
> > > allocate a fresh page table, place the fresh page table into the list
> > > instead, and simply free the old page table (then using common machinery).
> > > 
> > > TBH, I'd wish (and recently raised) that we could just stop wasting memory
> > > on page tables for THPs that are maybe never going to get PTE-mapped ... and
> > > eventually just allocate on demand (with some caching?) and handle the
> > > places where we're OOM and cannot PTE-map a THP in some descend way.
> > > 
> > > ... instead of trying to figure out how to deal with these page tables we
> > > cannot free but have to special-case simply because of GUP-fast.
> > 
> > Not keeping them around sounds good to me, but I'm not *that* familiar
> > with the THP code, most of that happened after I stopped tracking mm. So
> > I'm not sure how feasible is it.
> > 
> > But it does look entirely feasible to rework this page-table freeing
> > along the lines Jann did.
> 
> It's most probably more feasible, although the easiest would be to just
> allocate a fresh page table to deposit and free the old one using the mmu
> gatherer.
> 
> This way we can avoid the khugepaged of tlb_remove_table_smp_sync(), but not
> the tlb_remove_table_one() usage. I suspect khugepaged isn't really relevant
> in RT kernels (IIRC, most of RT setups disable THP completely).

People will disable khugepaged because it causes IPIs (and the fact one
has to disable khugepaged is a configuration overhead, and a source of
headache for configuring the realtime system, since one can forget of
doing that, etc).

But people do want to run non-RT applications along with RT applications
(in case you have a single box on a priviledged location, for example).

> 
> tlb_remove_table_one() only triggers if __get_free_page(GFP_NOWAIT |
> __GFP_NOWARN); fails. IIUC, that can happen easily under memory pressure
> because it doesn't wait for direct reclaim.
> 
> I don't know much about RT workloads (so I'd appreciate some feedback), but
> I guess we can run int memory pressure as well due to some !rt housekeeping
> task on the system?

Yes, exactly (memory for -RT app will be mlocked).