Message-ID: <699cb1db-51eb-460e-9ceb-1ce08ca03050@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 11:56:26 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....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 20.12.23 11:41, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 20/12/2023 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.12.23 11:11, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Whatever you prefer, it was mostly a quick prototype to see if we can achieve
>> decent performance.
> 
> I'm about to run it on Altra and M2. But I assume it will show similar results.
> 
>>
>> I can fixup the arch thingies (most should be easy, some might require a custom
>> pte_next_pfn())
> 
> Well if you're happy to do that, great! I'm keen to get the contpte stuff into
> v6.9 if at all possible, and I'm concious that I'm introducing more dependencies
> on you. And its about to be holiday season...

There is still plenty of time for 6.9. I'll try to get the rmap cleanup 
finished asap.

> 
>> and you can focus on getting cont-pte sorted out on top [I
>> assume that's what you want to work on :) ].
> 
> That's certainly what I'm focussed on. But I'm happy to do whatever is required
> to get it over the line. I guess I'll start by finishing my review of your v1
> rmap stuff.

I'm planning on sending out a new version today.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> Just double-checking, how would it use pte_batch_remaining() ?
> 
> I think something like this would do it (untested):
> 
> static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> 		pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr)
> {
> 	unsigned long folio_end_pfn = folio_pfn(folio) + folio_nr_pages(folio);
> 	pte_t expected_pte = pte_next_pfn(pte);
> 	pte_t *ptep = start_ptep;
> 	int nr;
> 
> 	for (;;) {
> 		nr = min(max_nr, pte_batch_remaining());
> 		ptep += nr;
> 		max_nr -= nr;
> 
> 		if (max_nr == 0)
> 			break;
> 

expected_pte would be messed up. We'd have to increment it a couple of 
times to make it match the nr of pages we're skipping.

> 		pte = ptep_get(ptep);
> 
> 		/* Do all PTE bits match, and the PFN is consecutive? */
> 		if (!pte_same(pte, expected_pte))
> 			break;
> 
> 		/*
> 		 * Stop immediately once we reached the end of the folio. In
> 		 * corner cases the next PFN might fall into a different
> 		 * folio.
> 		 */
> 		if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_end_pfn - 1)
> 			break;
> 
> 		expected_pte = pte_next_pfn(expected_pte);
> 	}
> 
> 	return ptep - start_ptep;
> }
> 
> Of course, if we have the concept of a "pte batch" in the core-mm, then we might
> want to call the arch's thing something different; pte span? pte cont? pte cont
> batch? ...

So, you mean something like

/*
  * The architecture might be able to tell us efficiently using cont-pte
  * bits how many next PTEs are certainly compatible. So in that case,
  * simply skip forward.
  */
nr = min(max_nr, nr_cont_ptes(ptep));
...

I wonder if something simple at the start of the function might be good 
enough for arm with cont-pte as a first step:

nr = nr_cont_ptes(start_ptep)
if (nr != 1) {
	return min(max_nr, nr);
}

Which would get optimized out on other architectures.


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists