[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zf2p38Pb51T3e9uB@x1n>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:55:11 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic
follow_page_mask code
Jason,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, peterx@...hat.com wrote:
>
> > A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
> > a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched. That shouldn't be a
> > problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when
> > page is commonly present, fast-gup will already succeed, while when the
> > page is indeed missing and require a follow up page fault, the slow gup
> > degrade will probably buried in the fault paths anyway. It also explains
> > why slow gup for THP used to be very slow before 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup:
> > accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"") lands, the latter not part of
> > a performance analysis but a side benefit. If the performance will be a
> > concern, we can consider handle CONT_PTE in follow_page().
>
> I think this is probably fine for the moment, at least for this
> series, as CONT_PTE is still very new.
>
> But it will need to be optimized. "slow" GUP is the only GUP that is
> used by FOLL_LONGTERM and it still needs to be optimized because you
> can't assume a FOLL_LONGTERM user will be hitting the really slow
> fault path. There are enough important cases where it is just reading
> already populted page tables, and these days, often with large folios.
Ah, I thought FOLL_LONGTERM should work in most cases for fast-gup,
especially for hugetlb, but maybe I missed something? I do see that devmap
skips fast-gup for LONGTERM, we also have that writeback issue but none of
those that I can find applies to hugetlb. This might be a problem indeed
if we have hugetlb cont_pte pages that will constantly fallback to slow
gup.
OTOH, I also agree with you that such batching would be nice to have for
slow-gup, likely devmap or many fs (exclude shmem/hugetlb) file mappings
can at least benefit from it due to above. But then that'll be a more
generic issue to solve, IOW, we still don't do that for !hugetlb cont_pte
large folios, before or after this series.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Thanks!
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists