On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 08:40:31PM +0800, Zhenyu Ye wrote:
> Add __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE macro and rewrite __flush_tlb_range().
>
> In this patch, we only use the TLBI RANGE feature if the stride == PAGE_SIZE,
> because when stride > PAGE_SIZE, usually only a small number of pages need
> to be flushed and classic tlbi intructions are more effective.
Why are they more effective? I guess a range op would work on this as
well, say unmapping a large THP range. If we ignore this stride ==
PAGE_SIZE, it could make the code easier to read.
> We can also use 'end - start < threshold number' to decide which way
> to go, however, different hardware may have different thresholds, so
> I'm not sure if this is feasible.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Ye <yezhen...@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 90 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Could you please rebase these patches on top of the arm64 for-next/tlbi
branch:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arm64/linux.git for-next/tlbi
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index bc3949064725..30975ddb8f06 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,16 @@
> __tlbi(op, (arg) | USER_ASID_FLAG);
> \
> } while (0)
>
> +#define __tlbi_last_level(op1, op2, arg, last_level) do { \
> + if (last_level) { \
> + __tlbi(op1, arg); \
> + __tlbi_user(op1, arg); \
> + } else { \
> + __tlbi(op2, arg); \
> + __tlbi_user(op2, arg); \
> + } \
> +} while (0)
> +
> /* This macro creates a properly formatted VA operand for the TLBI */
> #define __TLBI_VADDR(addr, asid) \
> ({ \
> @@ -59,6 +69,60 @@
> __ta; \
> })
>
> +/*
> + * Get translation granule of the system, which is decided by
> + * PAGE_SIZE. Used by TTL.
> + * - 4KB : 1
> + * - 16KB : 2
> + * - 64KB : 3
> + */
> +static inline unsigned long get_trans_granule(void)
> +{
> + switch (PAGE_SIZE) {
> + case SZ_4K:
> + return 1;
> + case SZ_16K:
> + return 2;
> + case SZ_64K:
> + return 3;
> + default:
> + return 0;
> + }
> +}
Maybe you can factor out this switch statement in the for-next/tlbi
branch to be shared with TTL.
> +/*
> + * This macro creates a properly formatted VA operand for the TLBI RANGE.
> + * The value bit assignments are:
> + *
> + * +----------+------+-------+-------+-------+----------------------+
> + * | ASID | TG | SCALE | NUM | TTL | BADDR |
> + * +-----------------+-------+-------+-------+----------------------+
> + * |63 48|47 46|45 44|43 39|38 37|36 0|
> + *
> + * The address range is determined by below formula:
> + * [BADDR, BADDR + (NUM + 1) * 2^(5*SCALE + 1) * PAGESIZE)
> + *
> + */
> +#define __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE(addr, asid, scale, num, ttl) \
I don't see a non-zero ttl passed to this macro but I suspect this would
change if based on top of the TTL patches.
> + ({ \
> + unsigned long __ta = (addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT; \
> + __ta &= GENMASK_ULL(36, 0); \
> + __ta |= (unsigned long)(ttl) << 37; \
> + __ta |= (unsigned long)(num) << 39; \
> + __ta |= (unsigned long)(scale) << 44; \
> + __ta |= get_trans_granule() << 46; \
> + __ta |= (unsigned long)(asid) << 48; \
> + __ta; \
> + })
> +
> +/* These macros are used by the TLBI RANGE feature. */
> +#define __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale) (((num) + 1) << (5 * (scale) +
> 1))
> +#define MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(31, 3)
> +
> +#define TLBI_RANGE_MASK GENMASK_ULL(4, 0)
> +#define __TLBI_RANGE_NUM(range, scale) \
> + (((range) >> (5 * (scale) + 1)) & TLBI_RANGE_MASK)
> +
> /*
> * TLB Invalidation
> * ================
> @@ -181,32 +245,44 @@ static inline void __flush_tlb_range(struct
> vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> unsigned long stride, bool last_level)
> {
> + int num = 0;
> + int scale = 0;
> unsigned long asid = ASID(vma->vm_mm);
> unsigned long addr;
> + unsigned long range_pages;
>
> start = round_down(start, stride);
> end = round_up(end, stride);
> + range_pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if ((end - start) >= (MAX_TLBI_OPS * stride)) {
> + if ((!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_TLBI_RANGE) &&
> + (end - start) >= (MAX_TLBI_OPS * stride)) ||
> + range_pages >= MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES) {
> flush_tlb_mm(vma->vm_mm);
> return;
> }
Is there any value in this range_pages check here? What's the value of
MAX_TLBI_RANGE_PAGES? If we have TLBI range ops, we make a decision here
but without including the stride. Further down we use the stride to skip
the TLBI range ops.
>
> - /* Convert the stride into units of 4k */
> - stride >>= 12;
> -
> - start = __TLBI_VADDR(start, asid);
> - end = __TLBI_VADDR(end, asid);
> -
> dsb(ishst);
> - for (addr = start; addr < end; addr += stride) {
> - if (last_level) {
> - __tlbi(vale1is, addr);
> - __tlbi_user(vale1is, addr);
> - } else {
> - __tlbi(vae1is, addr);
> - __tlbi_user(vae1is, addr);
> + while (range_pages > 0) {
BTW, I think we can even drop the "range_" from range_pages, it's just
the number of pages.
> + if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_TLBI_RANGE) &&
> + stride == PAGE_SIZE && range_pages % 2 == 0) {
> + num = __TLBI_RANGE_NUM(range_pages, scale) - 1;
> + if (num >= 0) {
> + addr = __TLBI_VADDR_RANGE(start, asid, scale,
> + num, 0);
> + __tlbi_last_level(rvale1is, rvae1is, addr,
> + last_level);
> + start += __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale) <<
> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + range_pages -= __TLBI_RANGE_PAGES(num, scale);
> + }
> + scale++;
> + continue;
> }
> +
> + addr = __TLBI_VADDR(start, asid);
> + __tlbi_last_level(vale1is, vae1is, addr, last_level);
> + start += stride;
> + range_pages -= stride >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> }
> dsb(ish);
> }
I think the algorithm is correct, though I need to work it out on a
piece of paper.
The code could benefit from some comments (above the loop) on how the
range is built and the right scale found.
--
Catalin
