[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6cda91b3-bb7a-4c4c-a618-2572b9c8bbf9@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 15:38:09 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm: Batch-zap large anonymous folio PTE mappings
On 27.07.23 16:18, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> This allows batching the rmap removal with folio_remove_rmap_range(),
> which means we avoid spuriously adding a partially unmapped folio to the
> deferred split queue in the common case, which reduces split queue lock
> contention.
>
> Previously each page was removed from the rmap individually with
> page_remove_rmap(). If the first page belonged to a large folio, this
> would cause page_remove_rmap() to conclude that the folio was now
> partially mapped and add the folio to the deferred split queue. But
> subsequent calls would cause the folio to become fully unmapped, meaning
> there is no value to adding it to the split queue.
>
> A complicating factor is that for platforms where MMU_GATHER_NO_GATHER
> is enabled (e.g. s390), __tlb_remove_page() drops a reference to the
> page. This means that the folio reference count could drop to zero while
> still in use (i.e. before folio_remove_rmap_range() is called). This
> does not happen on other platforms because the actual page freeing is
> deferred.
>
> Solve this by appropriately getting/putting the folio to guarrantee it
> does not get freed early. Given the need to get/put the folio in the
> batch path, we stick to the non-batched path if the folio is not large.
> While the batched path is functionally correct for a folio with 1 page,
> it is unlikely to be as efficient as the existing non-batched path in
> this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 132 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 01f39e8144ef..d35bd8d2b855 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -1391,6 +1391,99 @@ zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, pteval);
> }
>
> +static inline unsigned long page_cont_mapped_vaddr(struct page *page,
> + struct page *anchor, unsigned long anchor_vaddr)
> +{
> + unsigned long offset;
> + unsigned long vaddr;
> +
> + offset = (page_to_pfn(page) - page_to_pfn(anchor)) << PAGE_SHIFT;
> + vaddr = anchor_vaddr + offset;
> +
> + if (anchor > page) {
> + if (vaddr > anchor_vaddr)
> + return 0;
> + } else {
> + if (vaddr < anchor_vaddr)
> + return ULONG_MAX;
> + }
> +
> + return vaddr;
> +}
> +
> +static int folio_nr_pages_cont_mapped(struct folio *folio,
> + struct page *page, pte_t *pte,
> + unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> +{
> + pte_t ptent;
> + int floops;
> + int i;
> + unsigned long pfn;
> + struct page *folio_end;
> +
> + if (!folio_test_large(folio))
> + return 1;
> +
> + folio_end = &folio->page + folio_nr_pages(folio);
> + end = min(page_cont_mapped_vaddr(folio_end, page, addr), end);
> + floops = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> + pfn++;
> + pte++;
> +
> + for (i = 1; i < floops; i++) {
> + ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> +
> + if (!pte_present(ptent) || pte_pfn(ptent) != pfn)
> + break;
> +
> + pfn++;
> + pte++;
> + }
> +
> + return i;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long try_zap_anon_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + struct folio *folio,
> + struct page *page, pte_t *pte,
> + unsigned long addr, int nr_pages,
> + struct zap_details *details)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = tlb->mm;
> + pte_t ptent;
> + bool full;
> + int i;
> +
> + /* __tlb_remove_page may drop a ref; prevent going to 0 while in use. */
> + folio_get(folio);
Is there no way around that? It feels wrong and IMHO a bit ugly.
With this patch, you'll might suddenly have mapcount > refcount for a
folio, or am I wrong?
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_pages;) {
> + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> + zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
> + full = __tlb_remove_page(tlb, page, 0);
> +
> + if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) < 1))
> + print_bad_pte(vma, addr, ptent, page);
Can we avoid new users of page_mapcount() outside rmap code, please? :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists