Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:29:35 -0700
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/khugepaged: Detecting uffd-wp vma more efficiently

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:58 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:21:40PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 22.09.21 19:51, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > We forbid merging thps for uffd-wp enabled regions, by breaking the khugepaged
> > > scanning right after we detected a uffd-wp armed pte (either present, or swap).
> > >
> > > It works, but it's less efficient, because those ptes only exist for VM_UFFD_WP
> > > enabled VMAs.  Checking against the vma flag would be more efficient, and good
> > > enough.  To be explicit, we could still be able to merge some thps for
> > > VM_UFFD_WP regions before this patch as long as they have zero uffd-wp armed
> > > ptes, however that's not a major target for thp collapse anyways.
> > >
> >
> > Hm, are we sure there are no users that could benefit from the current
> > handling?
> >
> > I'm thinking about long-term uffd-wp users that effectively end up wp-ing on
> > only a small fraction of a gigantic vma, or always wp complete blocks in a
> > certain granularity in the range of THP.
>
> Yes, that's a good question.
>
> >
> > Databases come to mind ...
>
> One thing to mention is that this patch didn't forbid thp being used within a
> uffd-wp-ed range.  E.g., we still allow thp exist, we can uffd-wp a thp and
> it'll split only until when the thp is written.
>
> While what this patch does is it stops khugepaged from proactively merging
> those small pages into thps as long as VM_UFFD_WP|VM_UFFD_MINOR is set.  It may
> still affect some user, but it's not a complete disable on thp.
>
> >
> > In the past, I played with the idea of using uffd-wp to protect access to
> > logically unplugged memory regions part of virtio-mem devices in QEMU --
> > which would exactly do something as described above. But I'll most probably
> > be using ordinary uffd once any users that might read such logically
> > unplugged memory have been "fixed".
>
> Yes, even if you'd like to keep using uffd-wp that sounds like a very
> reasonable scenario.
>
> >
> > The change itself looks sane to me AFAIKT.
>
> So one major motivation of this patch of mine is to prepare for shmem, because
> the old commit obviously only covered anonymous.
>
> But after a 2nd thought, I just noticed shmem shouldn't have a problem with
> khugepaged merging at all!
>
> The thing is, when khugepaged is merging a shmem thp, unlike anonymous, it'll
> not merge the ptes into a pmd, but it'll simply zap the ptes.  It means all
> uffd-wp tracking information won't be lost even if merging happened, those info
> will still be kept inside pgtables using (the upcoming) pte markers.

khugepqged does remove the pgtables. Please check out
retract_page_tables(). The pmd will be cleared and the ptes will be
freed otherwise the collapsed THP won't get PMD mapped by later
access.

>
> When faulted, we'll just do small page mappings while it won't stop the shmem
> thp from being mapped hugely in other mm, afaict.
>
> With that in mind, indeed I see this patch less necessary to be merged; so for
> sparsely wr-protected vmas like virtio-mem we can still keep some of the ranges
> mergeable, that sounds a good thing to keep it as-is.
>
> NACK myself for now: let's not lose that good property of both thp+uffd-wp so
> easily, and I'll think more of it.
>
> (To Axel: my question to minor mode handling thp still stands, I think..)
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Peter Xu
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists