Excessive TLB flush ranges

[Baoquan He]

On 05/16/23 at 04:07pm, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 05/16/23 at 08:40am, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16 2023 at 10:26, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > On 05/15/23 at 08:17pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > >> For systems which lack a full TLB flush and to flush a long range is
> > >> a problem(it takes time), probably we can flush VA one by one. Because
> > >> currently we calculate a flush range [min:max] and that range includes
> > >> the space that might not be mapped at all. Like below:
> > >
> > > It's fine if we only calculate a flush range of [min:max] with VA. In
> > > vm_reset_perms(), it calculates the flush range with the impacted direct
> > > mapping range, then merge it with VA's range. That looks really strange
> > > and surprising. If the vm->pages[] are got from a lower part of physical
> > > memory, the final merged flush will span tremendous range. Wondering why
> > > we need merge the direct map range with VA range, then do flush. Not
> > > sure if I misunderstand it.
> > 
> > So what happens on this BPF teardown is:
> > 
> > The vfree(8k) ends up flushing 3 entries. The actual vmalloc part (2) and
> > one extra which is in the direct map. I haven't verified that yet, but I
> > assume it's the alias of one of the vmalloc'ed pages.
> 
> It looks like the reason. As Uladzislau pointed out, ARCH-es may
> have full TLB flush, so won't get trouble from the merged flush
> in the calculated [min:max] way, e.g arm64 and x86's flush_tlb_kernel_range().
> However, arm32 seems lacking the ability of full TLB flash. If agreed, I
> can make a draft patch to do the flush for direct map and VA seperately,
> see if it works.

Ah, didn't notice there's draft patch under discussing in another
sub-thread, please ignore this mail. Will check that sub-thread.