arm64 flushing 255GB of vmalloc space takes too long

[Laura Abbott]

On 7/9/2014 11:04 AM, Eric Miao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Catalin Marinas
> <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 05:53:26PM +0100, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Laura Abbott <lauraa at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> I have an arm64 target which has been observed hanging in __purge_vmap_area_lazy
>>>> in vmalloc.c The root cause of this 'hang' is that flush_tlb_kernel_range is
>>>> attempting to flush 255GB of virtual address space. This takes ~2 seconds and
>>>> preemption is disabled at this time thanks to the purge lock. Disabling
>>>> preemption for that time is long enough to trigger a watchdog we have setup.
>>
>> That's definitely not good.
>>
>>>> A couple of options I thought of:
>>>> 1) Increase the timeout of our watchdog to allow the flush to occur. Nobody
>>>> I suggested this to likes the idea as the watchdog firing generally catches
>>>> behavior that results in poor system performance and disabling preemption
>>>> for that long does seem like a problem.
>>>> 2) Change __purge_vmap_area_lazy to do less work under a spinlock. This would
>>>> certainly have a performance impact and I don't even know if it is plausible.
>>>> 3) Allow module unloading to trigger a vmalloc purge beforehand to help avoid
>>>> this case. This would still be racy if another vfree came in during the time
>>>> between the purge and the vfree but it might be good enough.
>>>> 4) Add 'if size > threshold flush entire tlb' (I haven't profiled this yet)
>>>
>>> We have the same problem. I'd agree with point 2 and point 4, point 1/3 do not
>>> actually fix this issue. purge_vmap_area_lazy() could be called in other
>>> cases.
>>
>> I would also discard point 2 as it still takes ~2 seconds, only that not
>> under a spinlock.
>>
> 
> Point is - we could still end up a good amount of time in that function,
> giving the default value of lazy_vfree_pages to be 32MB * log(ncpu),
> worst case of all vmap areas being only one page, tlb flush page by
> page, and traversal of the list, calling __free_vmap_area() that many
> times won't likely to reduce the execution time to microsecond level.
> 
> If it's something inevitable - we do it in a bit cleaner way.
> 
>>> w.r.t the threshold to flush entire tlb instead of doing that page-by-page, that
>>> could be different from platform to platform. And considering the cost of tlb
>>> flush on x86, I wonder why this isn't an issue on x86.
>>
>> The current __purge_vmap_area_lazy() was done as an optimisation (commit
>> db64fe02258f1) to avoid IPIs. So flush_tlb_kernel_range() would only be
>> IPI'ed once.
>>
>> IIUC, the problem is how start/end are computed in
>> __purge_vmap_area_lazy(), so even if you have only two vmap areas, if
>> they are 255GB apart you've got this problem.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>>
>> One temporary option is to limit the vmalloc space on arm64 to something
>> like 2 x RAM-size (haven't looked at this yet). But if you get a
>> platform with lots of RAM, you hit this problem again.
>>
>> Which leaves us with point (4) but finding the threshold is indeed
>> platform dependent. Another way could be a check for latency - so if it
>> took certain usecs, we break the loop and flush the whole TLB.
> 
> Or we end up having platform specific tlb flush implementation just as we
> did for cache ops. I would expect only few platforms will have their own
> thresholds. A simple heuristic guess of the threshold based on number of
> tlb entries would be good to go?
> 

Mark Salter actually proposed a fix to this back in May 

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/2/311

I never saw any further comments on it though. It also matches what x86
does with their TLB flushing. It fixes the problem for me and the threshold
seems to be the best we can do unless we want to introduce options per
platform. It will need to be rebased to the latest tree though.

Thanks,
Laura

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation