[PATCH 0/4] riscv: tlb flush improvements

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:19:47 PDT (-0700), Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> On 12/07/2023 09:08, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 09:54:30AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> > > This series optimizes the tlb flushes on riscv which used to simply
>> > > flush the whole tlb whatever the size of the range to flush or the size
>> > > of the stride.
>> > > 
>> > > Patch 3 introduces a threshold that is microarchitecture specific and
>> > > will very likely be modified by vendors, not sure though which mechanism
>> > > we'll use to do that (dt? alternatives? vendor initialization code?).
>> 
>> 
>> @Conor any idea how to achieve this?
>
> It's in my queue of things to look at, just been prioritising the
> extension related stuff the last few days. Hopefully I'll have a chance
> to think about this tomorrow.. Famous last words probably.
>
>> > > Next steps would be to implement:
>> > > - svinval extension as Mayuresh did here [1]
>> > > - BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH (I'll wait for arm64 patchset to land)
>> > > - MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE
>> > > - MMU_GATHER_MERGE_VMAS
>> > > 
>> > > Any other idea welcome.
>> > > 
>> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20230623123849.1425805-1-mchitale@ventanamicro.com/
>> > > 
>> > > Alexandre Ghiti (4):
>> > >    riscv: Improve flush_tlb()
>> > >    riscv: Improve flush_tlb_range() for hugetlb pages
>> > >    riscv: Make __flush_tlb_range() loop over pte instead of flushing the
>> > >      whole tlb
>> > The whole series does not build on nommu & this one adds a build warning
>> > for regular builds:
>> > +      1 ../arch/riscv/mm/tlbflush.c:32:15: warning: symbol 'tlb_flush_all_threshold' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> > 
>> > Cheers,
>> > Conor.
>> 
>> 
>> I'll fix the nommu build, sorry about that. Weird I missed this warning,
>> that's an LLVM build right? That variable will need to overwritten by the
>> vendors, so that should not be static (but it will depend on what solution
>> we implement).
>
> Just make it static until we actually have a vendor implementation of
> this stuff please, since we don't know what that will look like yet.

It's just a performance issue, right?  IIRC the SiFive errata wasn't 
actually based on how many TLB flushes happen, they're just broken in 
general so it was a probability thing.

If that's the case I agree we can just start with something arbitrary to 
start and then figure out how to set the tunable later.  It's probably 
going to be workload-specific too, so we'll probably end up with both a 
firmware default and a userspace override (maybe a sys entry or 
whatever).