| 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: <00a3ba1d-98e1-409b-ae6e-7fbcbdcd74d5@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:36:52 +0000
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and
MADV_COLD
On 13/03/2024 09:16, Barry Song wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:03 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/03/2024 07:19, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:01 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rework madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to avoid splitting any large
>>>> folio that is fully and contiguously mapped in the pageout/cold vm
>>>> range. This change means that large folios will be maintained all the
>>>> way to swap storage. This both improves performance during swap-out, by
>>>> eliding the cost of splitting the folio, and sets us up nicely for
>>>> maintaining the large folio when it is swapped back in (to be covered in
>>>> a separate series).
>>>>
>>>> Folios that are not fully mapped in the target range are still split,
>>>> but note that behavior is changed so that if the split fails for any
>>>> reason (folio locked, shared, etc) we now leave it as is and move to the
>>>> next pte in the range and continue work on the proceeding folios.
>>>> Previously any failure of this sort would cause the entire operation to
>>>> give up and no folios mapped at higher addresses were paged out or made
>>>> cold. Given large folios are becoming more common, this old behavior
>>>> would have likely lead to wasted opportunities.
>>>>
>>>> While we are at it, change the code that clears young from the ptes to
>>>> use ptep_test_and_clear_young(), which is more efficent than
>>>> get_and_clear/modify/set, especially for contpte mappings on arm64,
>>>> where the old approach would require unfolding/refolding and the new
>>>> approach can be done in place.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>
>>> This looks so much better than our initial RFC.
>>> Thank you for your excellent work!
>>
>> Thanks - its a team effort - I had your PoC and David's previous batching work
>> to use as a template.
>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/madvise.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>>>> index 547dcd1f7a39..56c7ba7bd558 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>>>> @@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>> LIST_HEAD(folio_list);
>>>> bool pageout_anon_only_filter;
>>>> unsigned int batch_count = 0;
>>>> + int nr;
>>>>
>>>> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>>>> return -EINTR;
>>>> @@ -423,7 +424,8 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>> return 0;
>>>> flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm);
>>>> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> - for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>> + for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>> + nr = 1;
>>>> ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>>>>
>>>> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
>>>> @@ -447,55 +449,66 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> - * Creating a THP page is expensive so split it only if we
>>>> - * are sure it's worth. Split it if we are only owner.
>>>> + * If we encounter a large folio, only split it if it is not
>>>> + * fully mapped within the range we are operating on. Otherwise
>>>> + * leave it as is so that it can be swapped out whole. If we
>>>> + * fail to split a folio, leave it in place and advance to the
>>>> + * next pte in the range.
>>>> */
>>>> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>>> - int err;
>>>> -
>>>> - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>>>> - break;
>>>> - if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>> - break;
>>>> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>>> - break;
>>>> - folio_get(folio);
>>>> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> - pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>>>> - start_pte = NULL;
>>>> - err = split_folio(folio);
>>>> - folio_unlock(folio);
>>>> - folio_put(folio);
>>>> - if (err)
>>>> - break;
>>>> - start_pte = pte =
>>>> - pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>>> - if (!start_pte)
>>>> - break;
>>>> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> - pte--;
>>>> - addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
>>>> - continue;
>>>> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY |
>>>> + FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>>>> + int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>>> +
>>>> + nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
>>>> + fpb_flags, NULL);
>>>
>>> I wonder if we have a quick way to avoid folio_pte_batch() if users
>>> are doing madvise() on a portion of a large folio.
>>
>> Good idea. Something like this?:
>>
>> if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio)
>
> what about
>
> "If (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio) && max_nr >= nr_pages)"
>
> just to account for cases where the user's end address falls within
> the middle of a large folio?
yes, even better. I'll add this for the next version.
>
>
> BTW, another minor issue is here:
>
> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
> batch_count = 0;
> if (need_resched()) {
> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> cond_resched();
> goto restart;
> }
> }
>
> We are increasing 1 for nr ptes, thus, we are holding PTL longer
> than small folios case? we used to increase 1 for each PTE.
> Does it matter?
I thought about that, but the vast majority of the work is per-folio, not
per-pte. So I concluded it would be best to continue to increment per-folio.
>
>> nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
>> fpb_flags, NULL);
>>
>> If we are not mapping the first page of the folio, then it can't be a full
>> mapping, so no need to call folio_pte_batch(). Just split it.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
>>>> + int err;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + folio_get(folio);
>>>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> + pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>>>> + start_pte = NULL;
>>>> + err = split_folio(folio);
>>>> + folio_unlock(folio);
>>>> + folio_put(folio);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + start_pte = pte =
>>>> + pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>>> + if (!start_pte)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> + nr = 0;
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio and
>>>> - * non-LRU folio.
>>>> + * non-LRU folio. If we have a large folio at this point, we
>>>> + * know it is fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as its
>>>> + * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>>>> + if (!folio_test_lru(folio) ||
>>>> + folio_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio))
>>>> continue;
>>>
>>> This looks so perfect and is exactly what I wanted to achieve.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>>>> -
>>>> - if (!pageout && pte_young(ptent)) {
>>>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
>>>> - tlb->fullmm);
>>>> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
>>>> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
>>>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>> + if (!pageout) {
>>>> + for (; nr != 0; nr--, pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>> + if (ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, addr, pte))
>>>> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> This looks so smart. if it is not pageout, we have increased pte
>>> and addr here; so nr is 0 and we don't need to increase again in
>>> for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE)
>>>
>>> otherwise, nr won't be 0. so we will increase addr and
>>> pte by nr.
>>
>> Indeed. I'm hoping that Lance is able to follow a similar pattern for
>> madvise_free_pte_range().
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> --
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>>
>>> Overall, LGTM,
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists