[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZAiqPU0RX3JfDFRP@x1n>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2023 10:31:09 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm/uffd: UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 05:11:07PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.03.23 22:39, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> Note that I wodnered for a second if we'd call it "UFFD_FEATURE_WP_MISSING"
> instead (similar to the definition of MISSING uffd that triggers when we
> have nothing mapped).
I'll be fine with either WP_UNPOPULATED or WP_ZEROPAGE, but hope to avoid
MISSING as that's definitely a keyword in uffd which can be confusing.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> [...]
>
> > With WP_UNPOPUATED, application like QEMU can avoid pre-read faults all the
> > memory before wr-protect during taking a live snapshot. Quotting from
> > Muhammad's test result here [3] based on a simple program [4]:
> >
> > (1) With huge page disabled
> > echo madvise > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
> > ./uffd_wp_perf
> > Test DEFAULT: 4
> > Test PRE-READ: 1111453 (pre-fault 1101011)
> > Test MADVISE: 278276 (pre-fault 266378)
> > Test WP-UNPOPULATE: 11712
> >
> > (2) With Huge page enabled
> > echo always > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
> > ./uffd_wp_perf
> > Test DEFAULT: 4
> > Test PRE-READ: 22521 (pre-fault 22348)
> > Test MADVISE: 4909 (pre-fault 4743)
> > Test WP-UNPOPULATE: 14448
> >
> > There'll be a great perf boost for no-thp case, while for thp enabled with
> > extreme case of all-thp-zero WP_UNPOPULATED can be slower than MADVISE, but
> > that's low possibility in reality, also the overhead was not reduced but
> > postponed until a follow up write on any huge zero thp, so potentitially it
>
> s/potentitially/potentially/
>
> > is faster by making the follow up writes slower.
>
> What I realized, interrestingly not only the writes, but also the reads. In
Curious why reading a zeropage would be a problem?
> case of background snapshots we'll be reading all VM memory I think ... but
> we could optimize in QEMU by consulting the pagemap if there is anything
> mapped at all, and not read zeros in that case [an optimization brought up
> several times already].
>
> I am not sure yet if we want to change the QEMU implementation. But anyhow,
> that's a different discussion.
The rest comments all look good here, I'll fix and resend, thanks.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists