Message-ID: <a73ed9f3-97f7-5822-f894-fce57ac02dc7@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 20:02:41 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] mm/gup: Accelerate thp gup even for "pages !=
 NULL"

On 20.06.23 18:23, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 05:43:35PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.06.23 01:10, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> The acceleration of THP was done with ctx.page_mask, however it'll be
>>> ignored if **pages is non-NULL.
>>>
>>> The old optimization was introduced in 2013 in 240aadeedc4a ("mm:
>>> accelerate mm_populate() treatment of THP pages").  It didn't explain why
>>> we can't optimize the **pages non-NULL case.  It's possible that at that
>>> time the major goal was for mm_populate() which should be enough back then.
>>
>> In the past we had these sub-page refcounts for THP. My best guess (and I
>> didn't check if that was still the case in 2013) would be that it was
>> simpler regarding refcount handling to to do it one-subpage at a time.
>>
>> But I might be just wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> Optimize thp for all cases, by properly looping over each subpage, doing
>>> cache flushes, and boost refcounts / pincounts where needed in one go.
>>>
>>> This can be verified using gup_test below:
>>>
>>>     # chrt -f 1 ./gup_test -m 512 -t -L -n 1024 -r 10
>>>
>>> Before:    13992.50 ( +-8.75%)
>>> After:       378.50 (+-69.62%)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    mm/gup.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>    1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>>> index 4a00d609033e..b50272012e49 100644
>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>>> @@ -1199,16 +1199,53 @@ static long __get_user_pages(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>    			goto out;
>>>    		}
>>>    next_page:
>>> -		if (pages) {
>>> -			pages[i] = page;
>>> -			flush_anon_page(vma, page, start);
>>> -			flush_dcache_page(page);
>>> -			ctx.page_mask = 0;
>>> -		}
>>> -
>>>    		page_increm = 1 + (~(start >> PAGE_SHIFT) & ctx.page_mask);
>>>    		if (page_increm > nr_pages)
>>>    			page_increm = nr_pages;
>>> +
>>> +		if (pages) {
>>> +			struct page *subpage;
>>> +			unsigned int j;
>>> +
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * This must be a large folio (and doesn't need to
>>> +			 * be the whole folio; it can be part of it), do
>>> +			 * the refcount work for all the subpages too.
>>> +			 *
>>> +			 * NOTE: here the page may not be the head page
>>> +			 * e.g. when start addr is not thp-size aligned.
>>> +			 * try_grab_folio() should have taken care of tail
>>> +			 * pages.
>>> +			 */
>>> +			if (page_increm > 1) {
>>> +				struct folio *folio;
>>> +
>>> +				/*
>>> +				 * Since we already hold refcount on the
>>> +				 * large folio, this should never fail.
>>> +				 */
>>> +				folio = try_grab_folio(page, page_increm - 1,
>>> +						       foll_flags);
>>> +				if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio)) {
>>> +					/*
>>> +					 * Release the 1st page ref if the
>>> +					 * folio is problematic, fail hard.
>>> +					 */
>>> +					gup_put_folio(page_folio(page), 1,
>>> +						      foll_flags);
>>> +					ret = -EFAULT;
>>> +					goto out;
>>> +				}
>>> +			}
>>> +
>>> +			for (j = 0; j < page_increm; j++) {
>>> +				subpage = nth_page(page, j);
>>> +				pages[i+j] = subpage;
>>
>> Doe checkpatch like pages[i+j]? I'd have used spaces around the +.
> 
> Can do.
> 
>>
>>> +				flush_anon_page(vma, subpage, start + j * PAGE_SIZE);
>>> +				flush_dcache_page(subpage);
>>> +			}
>>> +		}
>>> +
>>>    		i += page_increm;
>>>    		start += page_increm * PAGE_SIZE;
>>>    		nr_pages -= page_increm;
>>
>>
>> So, we did the first try_grab_folio() while our page was PMD-mapped udner
>> the PT lock and we had sufficient permissions (e.g., mapped writable, no
>> unsharing required). With FOLL_PIN, we incremented the pincount.
>>
>>
>> I was wondering if something could have happened ever since we unlocked the
>> PT table lock and possibly PTE-mapped the THP. ... but as it's already
>> pinned, it cannot get shared during fork() [will stay exclusive].
>>
>> So we can just take additional pins on that folio.
>>
>>
>> LGTM, although I do like the GUP-fast way of recording+ref'ing it at a
>> central place (see gup_huge_pmd() with record_subpages() and friends), not
>> after the effects.
> 
> My read on this is follow_page_mask() is also used in follow page, which
> does not need page*.

Right ... maybe one day we can do that "better".

> 
> No strong opinion here. Maybe we leave this as a follow up even if it can
> be justified?  This patch is probably still the smallest (and still clean)
> change to speed this whole thing up over either thp or hugetlb.

Sure, we can leave that as a follow-up.


Thinking about why we have the flush_anon_page/flush_dcache_page stuff 
here and not in GUP-fast ... I suspect that all GUP-fast archs don't 
need that stuff.

I was wondering if there are some possible races with the 
flush_anon_page() / flush_dcache_page() on a page that might have been 
unmapped in the meantime (as we dropped the PT lock ...).

Some flush_dcache_page() implementations do some IMHO confusing 
page_mapcount() things (like in arch/arc/mm/cache.c). But maybe the 
unmap code handles that as well ... and most likely these archs don't 
support THP.

Anyhow, just a note that the flush_anon_page/flush_dcache_page left me 
confused.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists