[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <013334d5-62d2-4256-8045-168893a0a0cf@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:20:11 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: 21cnbao@...il.com, mhocko@...e.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
zokeefe@...gle.com, shy828301@...il.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 v5 1/2] mm/madvise: optimize lazyfreeing with mTHP in
madvise_free
On 11.04.24 13:11, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 08/04/2024 05:24, 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%
>>
>> [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>
>> ---
>> include/linux/pgtable.h | 34 +++++++++
>> mm/internal.h | 12 +++-
>> mm/madvise.c | 149 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> mm/memory.c | 4 +-
>> 4 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> index 0f4b2faa1d71..4dd442787420 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>> @@ -489,6 +489,40 @@ static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> +#ifndef mkold_clean_ptes
>> +/**
>> + * mkold_clean_ptes - Mark PTEs that map consecutive pages of the same folio
>> + * as old and clean.
>> + * @mm: Address space the pages are mapped into.
>> + * @addr: Address the first page is mapped at.
>> + * @ptep: Page table pointer for the first entry.
>> + * @nr: Number of entries to mark old and clean.
>> + *
>> + * May be overridden by the architecture; otherwise, implemented by
>> + * get_and_clear/modify/set for each pte in the range.
>> + *
>> + * Note that PTE bits in the PTE range besides the PFN can differ. For example,
>> + * some PTEs might be write-protected.
>> + *
>> + * Context: The caller holds the page table lock. The PTEs map consecutive
>> + * pages that belong to the same folio. The PTEs are all in the same PMD.
>> + */
>> +static inline void mkold_clean_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>> + pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr)
>
> Just thinking out loud, I wonder if it would be cleaner to convert mkold_ptes()
> (which I added as part of swap-out) to something like:
>
> clear_young_dirty_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> pte_t *ptep, unsigned int nr,
> bool clear_young, bool clear_dirty);
>
> Then we can use the same function for both use cases and also have the ability
> to only clear dirty in future if we ever need it. The other advantage is that we
> only need to plumb a single function down the arm64 arch code. As it currently
> stands, those 2 functions would be duplicating most of their code.
Yes. Maybe better use proper __bitwise flags, the compiler should be
smart enough to optimize either way.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists