linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] mm: Implement folio_remove_rmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1aada499-4bb3-668c-10d0-06e0845efca1@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:02:57 +0100
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] mm: Implement folio_remove_rmap_range()

On 18/07/2023 08:12, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> writes:
> 
>> Like page_remove_rmap() but batch-removes the rmap for a range of pages
>> belonging to a folio. This can provide a small speedup due to less
>> manipuation of the various counters. But more crucially, if removing the
>> rmap for all pages of a folio in a batch, there is no need to
>> (spuriously) add it to the deferred split list, which saves significant
>> cost when there is contention for the split queue lock.
>>
>> All contained pages are accounted using the order-0 folio (or base page)
>> scheme.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/rmap.h |  2 ++
>>  mm/rmap.c            | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> index b87d01660412..f578975c12c0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>  		bool compound);
>>  void page_remove_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>  		bool compound);
>> +void folio_remove_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> +		int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma);
>>  
>>  void hugepage_add_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>>  		unsigned long address, rmap_t flags);
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 2baf57d65c23..1da05aca2bb1 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -1359,6 +1359,71 @@ void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>  	mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma, compound);
>>  }
>>  
>> +/*
>> + * folio_remove_rmap_range - take down pte mappings from a range of pages
>> + * belonging to a folio. All pages are accounted as small pages.
>> + * @folio:	folio that all pages belong to
>> + * @page:       first page in range to remove mapping from
>> + * @nr:		number of pages in range to remove mapping from
>> + * @vma:        the vm area from which the mapping is removed
>> + *
>> + * The caller needs to hold the pte lock.
>> + */
>> +void folio_remove_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> +					int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> 
> Can we call folio_remove_ramp_range() in page_remove_rmap() if
> !compound?  This can give us some opportunities to reduce code
> duplication?

I considered that, but if felt like the savings were pretty small so my opinion
was that it was cleaner not to do this. This is the best I came up with. Perhaps
you can see further improvements?

void page_remove_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
		bool compound)
{
	struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
	atomic_t *mapped = &folio->_nr_pages_mapped;
	int nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0;
	bool last;
	enum node_stat_item idx;

	VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound && !PageHead(page), page);

	/* Hugetlb pages are not counted in NR_*MAPPED */
	if (unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) {
		/* hugetlb pages are always mapped with pmds */
		atomic_dec(&folio->_entire_mapcount);
		return;
	}

	/* Is page being unmapped by PTE? Is this its last map to be removed? */
	if (likely(!compound)) {
		folio_remove_rmap_range(folio, page, 1, vma);
		return;
	} else if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio)) {
		/* That test is redundant: it's for safety or to optimize out */

		last = atomic_add_negative(-1, &folio->_entire_mapcount);
		if (last) {
			nr = atomic_sub_return_relaxed(COMPOUND_MAPPED, mapped);
			if (likely(nr < COMPOUND_MAPPED)) {
				nr_pmdmapped = folio_nr_pages(folio);
				nr = nr_pmdmapped - (nr & FOLIO_PAGES_MAPPED);
				/* Raced ahead of another remove and an add? */
				if (unlikely(nr < 0))
					nr = 0;
			} else {
				/* An add of COMPOUND_MAPPED raced ahead */
				nr = 0;
			}
		}
	}

	if (nr_pmdmapped) {
		if (folio_test_anon(folio))
			idx = NR_ANON_THPS;
		else if (folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
			idx = NR_SHMEM_PMDMAPPED;
		else
			idx = NR_FILE_PMDMAPPED;
		__lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, idx, -nr_pmdmapped);
	}
	if (nr) {
		idx = folio_test_anon(folio) ? NR_ANON_MAPPED : NR_FILE_MAPPED;
		__lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, idx, -nr);

		/*
		 * Queue anon THP for deferred split if at least one
		 * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
		 * is still mapped.
		 */
		if (folio_test_anon(folio) && nr < nr_pmdmapped)
			deferred_split_folio(folio);
	}

	/*
	 * It would be tidy to reset folio_test_anon mapping when fully
	 * unmapped, but that might overwrite a racing page_add_anon_rmap
	 * which increments mapcount after us but sets mapping before us:
	 * so leave the reset to free_pages_prepare, and remember that
	 * it's only reliable while mapped.
	 */

	munlock_vma_folio(folio, vma, compound);
}

> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>