Message-ID: <10b0b562-c1c0-4a66-9aeb-a6bff5c218f6@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:11:16 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
 Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Zenghui Yu
 <yuzenghui@...wei.com>, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
 Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Kefeng Wang
 <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
 Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork()

On 20/12/2023 09:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.12.23 10:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 20/12/2023 09:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 19.12.23 18:42, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2023 17:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 19.12.23 09:30, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/12/2023 17:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 18.12.23 11:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Convert copy_pte_range() to copy a batch of ptes in one go. A given
>>>>>>>> batch is determined by the architecture with the new helper,
>>>>>>>> pte_batch_remaining(), and maps a physically contiguous block of memory,
>>>>>>>> all belonging to the same folio. A pte batch is then write-protected in
>>>>>>>> one go in the parent using the new helper, ptep_set_wrprotects() and is
>>>>>>>> set in one go in the child using the new helper, set_ptes_full().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The primary motivation for this change is to reduce the number of tlb
>>>>>>>> maintenance operations that the arm64 backend has to perform during
>>>>>>>> fork, as it is about to add transparent support for the "contiguous bit"
>>>>>>>> in its ptes. By write-protecting the parent using the new
>>>>>>>> ptep_set_wrprotects() (note the 's' at the end) function, the backend
>>>>>>>> can avoid having to unfold contig ranges of PTEs, which is expensive,
>>>>>>>> when all ptes in the range are being write-protected. Similarly, by
>>>>>>>> using set_ptes_full() rather than set_pte_at() to set up ptes in the
>>>>>>>> child, the backend does not need to fold a contiguous range once they
>>>>>>>> are all populated - they can be initially populated as a contiguous
>>>>>>>> range in the first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This code is very performance sensitive, and a significant amount of
>>>>>>>> effort has been put into not regressing performance for the order-0
>>>>>>>> folio case. By default, pte_batch_remaining() is compile constant 1,
>>>>>>>> which enables the compiler to simplify the extra loops that are added
>>>>>>>> for batching and produce code that is equivalent (and equally
>>>>>>>> performant) as the previous implementation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This change addresses the core-mm refactoring only and a separate change
>>>>>>>> will implement pte_batch_remaining(), ptep_set_wrprotects() and
>>>>>>>> set_ptes_full() in the arm64 backend to realize the performance
>>>>>>>> improvement as part of the work to enable contpte mappings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To ensure the arm64 is performant once implemented, this change is very
>>>>>>>> careful to only call ptep_get() once per pte batch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following microbenchmark results demonstate that there is no
>>>>>>>> significant performance change after this patch. Fork is called in a
>>>>>>>> tight loop in a process with 1G of populated memory and the time for the
>>>>>>>> function to execute is measured. 100 iterations per run, 8 runs
>>>>>>>> performed on both Apple M2 (VM) and Ampere Altra (bare metal). Tests
>>>>>>>> performed for case where 1G memory is comprised of order-0 folios and
>>>>>>>> case where comprised of pte-mapped order-9 folios. Negative is faster,
>>>>>>>> positive is slower, compared to baseline upon which the series is based:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | Apple M2 VM   | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |
>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.1% |    0.0% |    1.2% |
>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -1.0% |    2.0% |   -0.1% |    1.1% |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | Ampere Altra  | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |
>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.0% |    0.0% |    0.1% |
>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -0.1% |    1.2% |   -0.1% |    0.1% |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tested-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>      include/linux/pgtable.h | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>      mm/memory.c             | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>>>      2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> index af7639c3b0a3..db93fb81465a 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -205,6 +205,27 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>>      #define arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode()    do {} while (0)
>>>>>>>>      #endif
>>>>>>>>      +#ifndef pte_batch_remaining
>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>> + * pte_batch_remaining - Number of pages from addr to next batch boundary.
>>>>>>>> + * @pte: Page table entry for the first page.
>>>>>>>> + * @addr: Address of the first page.
>>>>>>>> + * @end: Batch ceiling (e.g. end of vma).
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Some architectures (arm64) can efficiently modify a contiguous batch of
>>>>>>>> ptes.
>>>>>>>> + * In such cases, this function returns the remaining number of pages to
>>>>>>>> the end
>>>>>>>> + * of the current batch, as defined by addr. This can be useful when
>>>>>>>> iterating
>>>>>>>> + * over ptes.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * May be overridden by the architecture, else batch size is always 1.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +static inline unsigned int pte_batch_remaining(pte_t pte, unsigned long
>>>>>>>> addr,
>>>>>>>> +                        unsigned long end)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    return 1;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a shame we now lose the optimization for all other archtiectures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was there no way to have some basic batching mechanism that doesn't require
>>>>>>> arch
>>>>>>> specifics?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried a bunch of things but ultimately the way I've done it was the only
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to reduce the order-0 fork regression to 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My original v3 posting was costing 5% extra and even my first attempt at an
>>>>>> arch-specific version that didn't resolve to a compile-time constant 1 still
>>>>>> cost an extra 3%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have thought that something very basic would have worked like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Check if PTE is the same when setting the PFN to 0.
>>>>>>> * Check that PFN is consecutive
>>>>>>> * Check that all PFNs belong to the same folio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't tried this exact approach, but I'd be surprised if I can get the
>>>>>> regression under 4% with this. Further along the series I spent a lot of time
>>>>>> having to fiddle with the arm64 implementation; every conditional and every
>>>>>> memory read (even when in cache) was a problem. There is just so little in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> inner loop that every instruction matters. (At least on Ampere Altra and
>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>> M2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course if you're willing to pay that 4-5% for order-0 then the benefit to
>>>>>> order-9 is around 10% in my measurements. Personally though, I'd prefer to
>>>>>> play
>>>>>> safe and ensure the common order-0 case doesn't regress, as you previously
>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I just hacked something up, on top of my beloved rmap cleanup/batching
>>>>> series. I
>>>>> implemented very generic and simple batching for large folios (all PTE bits
>>>>> except the PFN have to match).
>>>>>
>>>>> Some very quick testing (don't trust each last % ) on Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver
>>>>> 4210R CPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> order-0: 0.014210 -> 0.013969
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Around 1.7 % faster
>>>>>
>>>>> order-9: 0.014373 -> 0.009149
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Around 36.3 % faster
>>>>
>>>> Well I guess that shows me :)
>>>>
>>>> I'll do a review and run the tests on my HW to see if it concurs.
>>>
>>>
>>> I pushed a simple compile fixup (we need pte_next_pfn()).
>>
>> I've just been trying to compile and noticed this. Will take a look at your
>> update.
>>
>> But upon review, I've noticed the part that I think makes this difficult for
>> arm64 with the contpte optimization; You are calling ptep_get() for every pte in
>> the batch. While this is functionally correct, once arm64 has the contpte
>> changes, its ptep_get() has to read every pte in the contpte block in order to
>> gather the access and dirty bits. So if your batching function ends up wealking
>> a 16 entry contpte block, that will cause 16 x 16 reads, which kills
>> performance. That's why I added the arch-specific pte_batch_remaining()
>> function; this allows the core-mm to skip to the end of the contpte block and
>> avoid ptep_get() for the 15 tail ptes. So we end up with 16 READ_ONCE()s instead
>> of 256.
>>
>> I considered making a ptep_get_noyoungdirty() variant, which would avoid the bit
>> gathering. But we have a similar problem in zap_pte_range() and that function
>> needs the dirty bit to update the folio. So it doesn't work there. (see patch 3
>> in my series).
>>
>> I guess you are going to say that we should combine both approaches, so that
>> your batching loop can skip forward an arch-provided number of ptes? That would
>> certainly work, but feels like an orthogonal change to what I'm trying to
>> achieve :). Anyway, I'll spend some time playing with it today.
> 
> You can overwrite the function or add special-casing internally, yes.
> 
> Right now, your patch is called "mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork()" and it
> doesn't do any of that besides preparing for some arm64 work.
> 

Well it allows an arch to opt-in to batching. But I see your point.

How do you want to handle your patches? Do you want to clean them up and I'll
base my stuff on top? Or do you want me to take them and sort it all out?

As I see it at the moment, I would keep your folio_pte_batch() always core, but
in subsequent patch, have it use pte_batch_remaining() (the arch function I have
in my series, which defaults to one). Then do a similar thing to what you have
done for fork in zap_pte_range() - also using folio_pte_batch(). Then lay my
series on top.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists