| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <27f40fc2-806a-52a9-3697-4ed9cd7081d4@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:22:36 +0800
From: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
CC: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
<hughd@...gle.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: record the mlocked page status to remove
unnecessary lru drain
Hi Baolin,
On 10/19/23 15:25, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2023 2:09 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 18 Oct 2023, at 9:04, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>> When doing compaction, I found the lru_add_drain() is an obvious hotspot
>>>> when migrating pages. The distribution of this hotspot is as follows:
>>>> - 18.75% compact_zone
>>>> - 17.39% migrate_pages
>>>> - 13.79% migrate_pages_batch
>>>> - 11.66% migrate_folio_move
>>>> - 7.02% lru_add_drain
>>>> + 7.02% lru_add_drain_cpu
>>>> + 3.00% move_to_new_folio
>>>> 1.23% rmap_walk
>>>> + 1.92% migrate_folio_unmap
>>>> + 3.20% migrate_pages_sync
>>>> + 0.90% isolate_migratepages
>>>>
>>>> The lru_add_drain() was added by commit c3096e6782b7 ("mm/migrate:
>>>> __unmap_and_move() push good newpage to LRU") to drain the newpage to LRU
>>>> immediately, to help to build up the correct newpage->mlock_count in
>>>> remove_migration_ptes() for mlocked pages. However, if there are no mlocked
>>>> pages are migrating, then we can avoid this lru drain operation, especailly
>>>> for the heavy concurrent scenarios.
>>>
>>> lru_add_drain() is also used to drain pages out of folio_batch. Pages in folio_batch
>>> have an additional pin to prevent migration. See folio_get(folio); in folio_add_lru().
>>
>> lru_add_drain() is called after the page reference count checking in
>> move_to_new_folio(). So, I don't this is an issue.
>
> Agree. The purpose of adding lru_add_drain() is to address the 'mlock_count' issue for mlocked pages. Please see commit c3096e6782b7 and related comments. Moreover I haven't seen an increase in the number of page migration failures due to page reference count checking after this patch.
I agree with your. My understanding also is that the lru_add_drain() is only needed
for mlocked folio to correct mlock_count. Like to hear the confirmation from Huge.
But I have question: why do we need use page_was_mlocked instead of check
folio_test_mlocked(src)? Does page migration clear the mlock flag? Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
>>>> So we can record the source pages' mlocked status in migrate_folio_unmap(),
>>>> and only drain the lru list when the mlocked status is set in migrate_folio_move().
>>>> In addition, the page was already isolated from lru when migrating, so we
>>>> check the mlocked status is stable by folio_test_mlocked() in migrate_folio_unmap().
>>>>
>>>> After this patch, I can see the hotpot of the lru_add_drain() is gone:
>>>> - 9.41% migrate_pages_batch
>>>> - 6.15% migrate_folio_move
>>>> - 3.64% move_to_new_folio
>>>> + 1.80% migrate_folio_extra
>>>> + 1.70% buffer_migrate_folio
>>>> + 1.41% rmap_walk
>>>> + 0.62% folio_add_lru
>>>> + 3.07% migrate_folio_unmap
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the compaction latency shows some improvements when running
>>>> thpscale:
>>>> base patched
>>>> Amean fault-both-1 1131.22 ( 0.00%) 1112.55 * 1.65%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-3 2489.75 ( 0.00%) 2324.15 * 6.65%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-5 3257.37 ( 0.00%) 3183.18 * 2.28%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-7 4257.99 ( 0.00%) 4079.04 * 4.20%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-12 6614.02 ( 0.00%) 6075.60 * 8.14%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-18 10607.78 ( 0.00%) 8978.86 * 15.36%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-24 14911.65 ( 0.00%) 11619.55 * 22.08%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-30 14954.67 ( 0.00%) 14925.66 * 0.19%*
>>>> Amean fault-both-32 16654.87 ( 0.00%) 15580.31 * 6.45%*
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/migrate.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> index 4caf405b6504..32c96f89710f 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/migrate.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/migrate.c
>>>> @@ -1027,22 +1027,32 @@ union migration_ptr {
>>>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma;
>>>> struct address_space *mapping;
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> +enum {
>>>> + PAGE_WAS_MAPPED = 1 << 0,
>>>> + PAGE_WAS_MLOCKED = 1 << 1,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> static void __migrate_folio_record(struct folio *dst,
>>>> - unsigned long page_was_mapped,
>>>> + unsigned long page_flags,
>>>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
>>>> {
>>>> union migration_ptr ptr = { .anon_vma = anon_vma };
>>>> dst->mapping = ptr.mapping;
>>>> - dst->private = (void *)page_was_mapped;
>>>> + dst->private = (void *)page_flags;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static void __migrate_folio_extract(struct folio *dst,
>>>> int *page_was_mappedp,
>>>> + int *page_was_mlocked,
>>>> struct anon_vma **anon_vmap)
>>>> {
>>>> union migration_ptr ptr = { .mapping = dst->mapping };
>>>> + unsigned long page_flags = (unsigned long)dst->private;
>>>> +
>>>> *anon_vmap = ptr.anon_vma;
>>>> - *page_was_mappedp = (unsigned long)dst->private;
>>>> + *page_was_mappedp = page_flags & PAGE_WAS_MAPPED ? 1 : 0;
>>>> + *page_was_mlocked = page_flags & PAGE_WAS_MLOCKED ? 1 : 0;
>>>> dst->mapping = NULL;
>>>> dst->private = NULL;
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -1103,7 +1113,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t get_new_folio,
>>>> {
>>>> struct folio *dst;
>>>> int rc = -EAGAIN;
>>>> - int page_was_mapped = 0;
>>>> + int page_was_mapped = 0, page_was_mlocked = 0;
>>>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>>>> bool is_lru = !__folio_test_movable(src);
>>>> bool locked = false;
>>>> @@ -1157,6 +1167,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t get_new_folio,
>>>> folio_lock(src);
>>>> }
>>>> locked = true;
>>>> + page_was_mlocked = folio_test_mlocked(src);
>>>>
>>>> if (folio_test_writeback(src)) {
>>>> /*
>>>> @@ -1206,7 +1217,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t get_new_folio,
>>>> dst_locked = true;
>>>>
>>>> if (unlikely(!is_lru)) {
>>>> - __migrate_folio_record(dst, page_was_mapped, anon_vma);
>>>> + __migrate_folio_record(dst, 0, anon_vma);
>>>> return MIGRATEPAGE_UNMAP;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1236,7 +1247,13 @@ static int migrate_folio_unmap(new_folio_t get_new_folio,
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (!folio_mapped(src)) {
>>>> - __migrate_folio_record(dst, page_was_mapped, anon_vma);
>>>> + unsigned int page_flags = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (page_was_mapped)
>>>> + page_flags |= PAGE_WAS_MAPPED;
>>>> + if (page_was_mlocked)
>>>> + page_flags |= PAGE_WAS_MLOCKED;
>>>> + __migrate_folio_record(dst, page_flags, anon_vma);
>>>> return MIGRATEPAGE_UNMAP;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1261,12 +1278,13 @@ static int migrate_folio_move(free_folio_t put_new_folio, unsigned long private,
>>>> struct list_head *ret)
>>>> {
>>>> int rc;
>>>> - int page_was_mapped = 0;
>>>> + int page_was_mapped = 0, page_was_mlocked = 0;
>>>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>>>> bool is_lru = !__folio_test_movable(src);
>>>> struct list_head *prev;
>>>>
>>>> - __migrate_folio_extract(dst, &page_was_mapped, &anon_vma);
>>>> + __migrate_folio_extract(dst, &page_was_mapped,
>>>> + &page_was_mlocked, &anon_vma);
>>>
>>> It is better to read out the flag, then check page_was_mapped and page_was_mlocked
>>> to avoid future __migrate_folio_extract() interface churns.
>>
>> IHMO, in contrast, it's better to use separate flags in
>> __migrate_folio_record() too to avoid to pack flags in each call site.
>
> Either way is okay for me. And avoiding to pack flags in each call site seems more reasonable to me.
>
>>
>>>> prev = dst->lru.prev;
>>>> list_del(&dst->lru);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1287,7 +1305,7 @@ static int migrate_folio_move(free_folio_t put_new_folio, unsigned long private,
>>>> * isolated from the unevictable LRU: but this case is the easiest.
>>>> */
>>>> folio_add_lru(dst);
>>>> - if (page_was_mapped)
>>>> + if (page_was_mlocked)
>>>> lru_add_drain();
>>>
>>> Like I said at the top, this would be if (page_was_mapped || page_was_mlocked).
>
> I don't think so. Like I said above, we can drain lru list only if page was mlocked.
>
>>>> if (page_was_mapped)
>>>> @@ -1321,8 +1339,15 @@ static int migrate_folio_move(free_folio_t put_new_folio, unsigned long private,
>>>> * right list unless we want to retry.
>>>> */
>>>> if (rc == -EAGAIN) {
>>>> + unsigned int page_flags = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (page_was_mapped)
>>>> + page_flags |= PAGE_WAS_MAPPED;
>>>> + if (page_was_mlocked)
>>>> + page_flags |= PAGE_WAS_MLOCKED;
>>>> +
>>>> list_add(&dst->lru, prev);
>>>> - __migrate_folio_record(dst, page_was_mapped, anon_vma);
>>>> + __migrate_folio_record(dst, page_flags, anon_vma);
>>>> return rc;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1799,10 +1824,11 @@ static int migrate_pages_batch(struct list_head *from,
>>>> dst = list_first_entry(&dst_folios, struct folio, lru);
>>>> dst2 = list_next_entry(dst, lru);
>>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(folio, folio2, &unmap_folios, lru) {
>>>> - int page_was_mapped = 0;
>>>> + int page_was_mapped = 0, page_was_mlocked = 0;
>>>> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> - __migrate_folio_extract(dst, &page_was_mapped, &anon_vma);
>>>> + __migrate_folio_extract(dst, &page_was_mapped,
>>>> + &page_was_mlocked, &anon_vma);
>>>> migrate_folio_undo_src(folio, page_was_mapped, anon_vma,
>>>> true, ret_folios);
>>>> list_del(&dst->lru);
>>>> --
>>>> 2.39.3
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists