Message-ID: <1fd26a83-8e6f-4b96-9d27-dd46de9488cc@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 10:26:13 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Yin Fengwei
 <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
 linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] mm/memory: optimize unmap/zap with PTE-mapped THP

On 31/01/2024 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 31.01.24 03:20, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>> On 1/29/24 22:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> This series is based on [1] and must be applied on top of it.
>>> Similar to what we did with fork(), let's implement PTE batching
>>> during unmap/zap when processing PTE-mapped THPs.
>>>
>>> We collect consecutive PTEs that map consecutive pages of the same large
>>> folio, making sure that the other PTE bits are compatible, and (a) adjust
>>> the refcount only once per batch, (b) call rmap handling functions only
>>> once per batch, (c) perform batch PTE setting/updates and (d) perform TLB
>>> entry removal once per batch.
>>>
>>> Ryan was previously working on this in the context of cont-pte for
>>> arm64, int latest iteration [2] with a focus on arm6 with cont-pte only.
>>> This series implements the optimization for all architectures, independent
>>> of such PTE bits, teaches MMU gather/TLB code to be fully aware of such
>>> large-folio-pages batches as well, and amkes use of our new rmap batching
>>> function when removing the rmap.
>>>
>>> To achieve that, we have to enlighten MMU gather / page freeing code
>>> (i.e., everything that consumes encoded_page) to process unmapping
>>> of consecutive pages that all belong to the same large folio. I'm being
>>> very careful to not degrade order-0 performance, and it looks like I
>>> managed to achieve that.
>>
> 
> Let's CC Linus and Michal to make sure I'm not daydreaming.
> 
> Relevant patch:
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240129143221.263763-8-david@redhat.com
> 
> Context: I'm adjusting MMU gather code to support batching of consecutive pages
> that belong to the same large folio, when unmapping/zapping PTEs.
> 
> For small folios, there is no (relevant) change.
> 
> Imagine we have a PTE-mapped THP (2M folio -> 512 pages) and zap all 512 PTEs:
> Instead of adding 512 individual encoded_page entries, we add a combined entry
> that expresses "page+nr_pages". That allows for "easily" adding various other
> per-folio batching (refcount, rmap, swap freeing).
> 
> The implication is, that we can now batch effective more pages with large
> folios, exceeding the old 10000 limit. The number of involved *folios* does not
> increase, though.
> 
>> One possible scenario:
>> If all the folio is 2M size folio, then one full batch could hold 510M memory.
>> Is it too much regarding one full batch before just can hold (2M - 4096 * 2)
>> memory?
> 
> Excellent point, I think there are three parts to it:
> 
> (1) Batch pages / folio fragments per batch page
> 
> Before this change (and with 4k folios) we have exactly one page (4k) per
> encoded_page entry in the batch. Now, we can have (with 2M folios), 512 pages
> for every two encoded_page entries (page+nr_pages) in a batch page. So an
> average ~256 pages per encoded_page entry.
> 
> So one batch page can now store in the worst case ~256 times the number of
> pages, but the number of folio fragments ("pages+nr_pages") would not increase.
> 
> The time it takes to perform the actual page freeing of a batch will not be 256
> times higher -- the time is expected to be much closer to the old time (i.e.,
> not freeing more folios).

IIRC there is an option to zero memory when it is freed back to the buddy? So
that could be a place where time is proportional to size rather than
proportional to folio count? But I think that option is intended for debug only?
So perhaps not a problem in practice?


> 
> (2) Delayed rmap handling
> 
> We limit batching early (see tlb_next_batch()) when we have delayed rmap
> pending. Reason being, that we don't want to check for many entries if they
> require delayed rmap handling, while still holding the page table lock (see
> tlb_flush_rmaps()), because we have to remove the rmap before dropping the PTL.
> 
> Note that we perform the check whether we need delayed rmap handling per
> page+nr_pages entry, not per page. So we won't perform more such checks.
> 
> Once we set tlb->delayed_rmap (because we add one entry that requires it), we
> already force a flush before dropping the PT lock. So once we get a single
> delayed rmap entry in there, we will not batch more than we could have in the
> same page table: so not more than 512 entries (x86-64) in the worst case. So it
> will still be bounded, and not significantly more than what we had before.
> 
> So regarding delayed rmap handling I think this should be fine.
> 
> (3) Total patched pages
> 
> MAX_GATHER_BATCH_COUNT effectively limits the number of pages we allocate (full
> batches), and thereby limits the number of pages we were able to batch.
> 
> The old limit was ~10000 pages, now we could batch ~5000 folio fragments
> (page+nr_pages), resulting int the "times 256" increase in the worst case on
> x86-64 as you point out.
> 
> This 10000 pages limit was introduced in 53a59fc67f97 ("mm: limit mmu_gather
> batching to fix soft lockups on !CONFIG_PREEMPT") where we wanted to handle
> soft-lockups.
> 
> As the number of effective folios we are freeing does not increase, I *think*
> this should be fine.
> 
> 
> If any of that is a problem, we would have to keep track of the total number of
> pages in our batch, and stop as soon as we hit our 10000 limit -- independent of
> page vs. folio fragment. Something I would like to avoid of possible.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists