Message-ID: <99c745a1-fe87-4f63-9475-a0a598c92c8c@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 18:34:56 +0100
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: zokeefe@...gle.com, 21cnbao@...il.com, shy828301@...il.com,
 david@...hat.com, mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
 xiehuan09@...il.com, wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
 peterx@...hat.com, minchan@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] mm/madvise: optimize lazyfreeing with mTHP in
 madvise_free

On 02/04/2024 13:40, Lance Yang wrote:
> This patch optimizes lazyfreeing with PTE-mapped mTHP[1]
> (Inspired by David Hildenbrand[2]). We aim to avoid unnecessary folio
> splitting if the large folio is fully mapped within the target range.
> 
> If a large folio is locked or shared, or if we fail to split it, we just
> leave it in place and advance to the next PTE in the range. But note that
> the behavior is changed; previously, any failure of this sort would cause
> the entire operation to give up. As large folios become more common,
> sticking to the old way could result in wasted opportunities.
> 
> On an Intel I5 CPU, lazyfreeing a 1GiB VMA backed by PTE-mapped folios of
> the same size results in the following runtimes for madvise(MADV_FREE) in
> seconds (shorter is better):
> 
> Folio Size |   Old    |   New    | Change
> ------------------------------------------
>       4KiB | 0.590251 | 0.590259 |    0%
>      16KiB | 2.990447 | 0.185655 |  -94%
>      32KiB | 2.547831 | 0.104870 |  -95%
>      64KiB | 2.457796 | 0.052812 |  -97%
>     128KiB | 2.281034 | 0.032777 |  -99%
>     256KiB | 2.230387 | 0.017496 |  -99%
>     512KiB | 2.189106 | 0.010781 |  -99%
>    1024KiB | 2.183949 | 0.007753 |  -99%
>    2048KiB | 0.002799 | 0.002804 |    0%

I'm guessing the reason that 2M is not showing any change is because its
PMD-mapped and splitting is already elided? If you were to force it to be
PTE-mapped then you'll see the very impressive speed-up there too. Don't worry
about doing that on my account though; these results are already sufficient IMHO.

> 
> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231207161211.2374093-5-ryan.roberts@arm.com
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240214204435.167852-1-david@redhat.com
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
> ---
>  mm/internal.h |  12 ++++-
>  mm/madvise.c  | 147 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  mm/memory.c   |   4 +-
>  3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> index 3df06a152ff0..cdc6e2162b30 100644
> --- a/mm/internal.h
> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@ static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
>   *		  first one is writable.
>   * @any_young: Optional pointer to indicate whether any entry except the
>   *		  first one is young.
> + * @any_dirty: Optional pointer to indicate whether any entry except the
> + *		  first one is dirty.
>   *
>   * Detect a PTE batch: consecutive (present) PTEs that map consecutive
>   * pages of the same large folio.
> @@ -147,18 +149,20 @@ static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
>   */
>  static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
>  		pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr, fpb_t flags,
> -		bool *any_writable, bool *any_young)
> +		bool *any_writable, bool *any_young, bool *any_dirty)
>  {
>  	unsigned long folio_end_pfn = folio_pfn(folio) + folio_nr_pages(folio);
>  	const pte_t *end_ptep = start_ptep + max_nr;
>  	pte_t expected_pte, *ptep;
> -	bool writable, young;
> +	bool writable, young, dirty;
>  	int nr;
>  
>  	if (any_writable)
>  		*any_writable = false;
>  	if (any_young)
>  		*any_young = false;
> +	if (any_dirty)
> +		*any_dirty = false;
>  
>  	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!pte_present(pte), folio);
>  	VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
> @@ -174,6 +178,8 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
>  			writable = !!pte_write(pte);
>  		if (any_young)
>  			young = !!pte_young(pte);
> +		if (any_dirty)
> +			dirty = !!pte_dirty(pte);
>  		pte = __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte, flags);
>  
>  		if (!pte_same(pte, expected_pte))
> @@ -191,6 +197,8 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
>  			*any_writable |= writable;
>  		if (any_young)
>  			*any_young |= young;
> +		if (any_dirty)
> +			*any_dirty |= dirty;
>  
>  		nr = pte_batch_hint(ptep, pte);
>  		expected_pte = pte_advance_pfn(expected_pte, nr);
> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
> index bd00b83e7c50..8197effd9f14 100644
> --- a/mm/madvise.c
> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
> @@ -321,6 +321,38 @@ static inline bool can_do_file_pageout(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>  	       file_permission(vma->vm_file, MAY_WRITE) == 0;
>  }
>  
> +static inline int madvise_folio_pte_batch(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> +					  struct folio *folio, pte_t *pte,
> +					  bool *any_writable, bool *any_young, bool *any_dirty)

any_writable is always NULL. Do you need it?

> +{
> +	int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> +
> +	return folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptep_get(pte), max_nr,

ptep_get() was problematic for performance of the order-0 folio case when we
batched fork(). So we are deliberately passing around the value we already read
in the main loop. Granted this case is not so performance critical because we
only end up here for large folios. But I would still prefer to just pass the
data we have already read into this function rather than reading it again.

> +			       fpb_flags, any_writable, any_young, any_dirty);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool madvise_pte_split_folio(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
> +					   unsigned long addr, struct folio *folio, pte_t **pte,

nit: I know 80 chars is a soft limit now (and I think 100 is a hard limit), but
try to be consistent. You could move the addr param to the previous line and be
within the 100 char limit. Personally I would just make the prototype fit in 80
chars (same goes for madvise_folio_pte_batch).

> +					   spinlock_t **ptl)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	folio_get(folio);
> +	pte_unmap_unlock(*pte, *ptl);
> +	*pte = NULL;

nit: you don't need this since you are later unconditionally setting it again.

> +	err = split_folio(folio);
> +	folio_unlock(folio);
> +	folio_put(folio);
> +
> +	*pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, ptl);
> +
> +	return err == 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>  				unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>  				struct mm_walk *walk)
> @@ -456,40 +488,26 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>  		 * next pte in the range.
>  		 */
>  		if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> -			const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY |
> -						FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> -			int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
>  			bool any_young;
> -
> -			nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
> -					     fpb_flags, NULL, &any_young);
> +			nr = madvise_folio_pte_batch(addr, end, folio, pte,
> +						     NULL, &any_young, NULL);
>  			if (any_young)
>  				ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
>  
>  			if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
> -				int err;
> -
>  				if (folio_likely_mapped_shared(folio))
>  					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 (madvise_pte_split_folio(mm, pmd, addr,
> +							    folio, &start_pte, &ptl))
> +					nr = 0;
>  				if (!start_pte)
>  					break;
> +				pte = start_pte;
>  				arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> -				nr = 0;
>  				continue;

This change fixes a bug I've introduced in my swap-out series. Nice. I tried to
fix in v6, but looking at this, I've realised its still broken. I've replied
against that series with the fix.


>  			}
>  		}
> @@ -688,72 +706,59 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
>  			continue;
>  
>  		/*
> -		 * If pmd isn't transhuge but the folio is large and
> -		 * is owned by only this process, split it and
> -		 * deactivate all pages.
> +		 * 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 marked as lazyfree. 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;
> +			bool any_young, any_dirty;
> +			nr = madvise_folio_pte_batch(addr, end, folio, pte,
> +						     NULL, &any_young, &any_dirty);
> +			if (any_young || any_dirty)
> +				ptent = pte_mkdirty(pte_mkyoung(ptent));

I don't think it makes any difference to how ptent is consumed below, but its
probably more intuitive to separate these two operations:

			if (any_young)
				ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
			if (any_dirty)
				ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent);

>  
> -			if (folio_likely_mapped_shared(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;
> -		}
> +			if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
> +				if (folio_likely_mapped_shared(folio))
> +					continue;
>  
> -		if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
> -			if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> -				continue;
> -			/*
> -			 * If folio is shared with others, we mustn't clear
> -			 * the folio's dirty flag.
> -			 */
> -			if (folio_mapcount(folio) != 1) {
> -				folio_unlock(folio);
> +				arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> +				if (madvise_pte_split_folio(mm, pmd, addr,
> +							    folio, &start_pte, &ptl))
> +					nr = 0;
> +				if (!start_pte)
> +					break;
> +				pte = start_pte;
> +				arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>  				continue;
>  			}
> +		}
>  
> +		if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> +			continue;
> +		/*
> +		 * 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_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
> +			folio_unlock(folio);
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) || folio_test_dirty(folio)) {

I don't understand the rationale for reducing the scope of this conditional?
Previously it was used to avoid having to lock the folio if it wasn't in the
swapcache or if it wasn't dirty. So now you will be locking much more often.

Thanks,
Ryan

>  			if (folio_test_swapcache(folio) &&
>  			    !folio_free_swap(folio)) {
>  				folio_unlock(folio);
>  				continue;
>  			}
> -
>  			folio_clear_dirty(folio);
> -			folio_unlock(folio);
>  		}
> +		folio_unlock(folio);
>  
>  		if (pte_young(ptent) || pte_dirty(ptent)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * Some of architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB
> -			 * with set_pte_at and tlb_remove_tlb_entry so for
> -			 * the portability, remap the pte with old|clean
> -			 * after pte clearing.
> -			 */
> -			ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
> -							tlb->fullmm);
> -
> -			ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> -			ptent = pte_mkclean(ptent);
> -			set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> -			tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> +			mkold_clean_ptes(vma, addr, pte, nr, tlb->fullmm);
> +			tlb_remove_tlb_entries(tlb, pte, nr, addr);
>  		}
>  		folio_mark_lazyfree(folio);
>  	}
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 912cd738ec03..24769ecb59e5 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -989,7 +989,7 @@ copy_present_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma
>  			flags |= FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>  
>  		nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, src_pte, pte, max_nr, flags,
> -				     &any_writable, NULL);
> +				     &any_writable, NULL, NULL);
>  		folio_ref_add(folio, nr);
>  		if (folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>  			if (unlikely(folio_try_dup_anon_rmap_ptes(folio, page,
> @@ -1559,7 +1559,7 @@ static inline int zap_present_ptes(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>  	 */
>  	if (unlikely(folio_test_large(folio) && max_nr != 1)) {
>  		nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr, fpb_flags,
> -				     NULL, NULL);
> +				     NULL, NULL, NULL);
>  
>  		zap_present_folio_ptes(tlb, vma, folio, page, pte, ptent, nr,
>  				       addr, details, rss, force_flush,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists