Message-ID: <2406521e-f5be-474e-b653-e5ad38a1d7de@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:20:25 +0300
From: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
 Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
 Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
 Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>,
 Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>,
 Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [v2 02/11] mm/thp: zone_device awareness in THP handling code


On 8/1/25 14:10, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2025, at 4:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 01.08.25 10:01, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> On 8/1/25 17:04, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 01.08.25 06:44, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>>>> On 8/1/25 11:16, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/1/25 03:49, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/31/25 21:26, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 31 Jul 2025, at 3:15, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30.07.25 18:29, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 18:58, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 11:40, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 18:10, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 8:49, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 15:25, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 8:08, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 14:42, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 14:30, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 7:27, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jul 2025, at 7:16, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/25 12:21, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Make THP handling code in the mm subsystem for THP pages aware of zone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device pages. Although the code is designed to be generic when it comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to handling splitting of pages, the code is designed to work for THP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> page sizes corresponding to HPAGE_PMD_NR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Modify page_vma_mapped_walk() to return true when a zone device huge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entry is present, enabling try_to_migrate() and other code migration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paths to appropriately process the entry. page_vma_mapped_walk() will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return true for zone device private large folios only when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PVMW_THP_DEVICE_PRIVATE is passed. This is to prevent locations that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not zone device private pages from having to add awareness. The key
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callback that needs this flag is try_to_migrate_one(). The other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks page idle, damon use it for setting young/dirty bits, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not significant when it comes to pmd level bit harvesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pmd_pfn() does not work well with zone device entries, use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pfn_pmd_entry_to_swap() for checking and comparison as for zone device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zone device private entries when split via munmap go through pmd split,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but need to go through a folio split, deferred split does not work if a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fault is encountered because fault handling involves migration entries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (via folio_migrate_mapping) and the folio sizes are expected to be the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same there. This introduces the need to split the folio while handling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the pmd split. Because the folio is still mapped, but calling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio_split() will cause lock recursion, the __split_unmapped_folio()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code is used with a new helper to wrap the code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split_device_private_folio(), which skips the checks around
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio->mapping, swapcache and the need to go through unmap and remap
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: "Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@...hat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbirs@...dia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     include/linux/huge_mm.h |   1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     include/linux/rmap.h    |   2 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     include/linux/swapops.h |  17 +++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     mm/huge_memory.c        | 268 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     mm/page_vma_mapped.c    |  13 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     mm/pgtable-generic.c    |   6 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     mm/rmap.c               |  22 +++-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     7 files changed, 278 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * split_huge_device_private_folio - split a huge device private folio into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * smaller pages (of order 0), currently used by migrate_device logic to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * split folios for pages that are partially mapped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @folio: the folio to split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * The caller has to hold the folio_lock and a reference via folio_get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +int split_device_private_folio(struct folio *folio)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct folio *end_folio = folio_next(folio);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    struct folio *new_folio;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    int ret = 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    /*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * Split the folio now. In the case of device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * private pages, this path is executed when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * the pmd is split and since freeze is not true
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * it is likely the folio will be deferred_split.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * With device private pages, deferred splits of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * folios should be handled here to prevent partial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * unmaps from causing issues later on in migration
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     * and fault handling flows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +     */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    folio_ref_freeze(folio, 1 + folio_expected_ref_count(folio));
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't this freeze fail? The folio is still mapped afaics, why can't there be other references in addition to the caller?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Based on my off-list conversation with Balbir, the folio is unmapped in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU side but mapped in the device. folio_ref_freeeze() is not aware of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device side mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe we should make it aware of device private mapping? So that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process mirrors CPU side folio split: 1) unmap device private mapping,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) freeze device private folio, 3) split unmapped folio, 4) unfreeze,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) remap device private mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah ok this was about device private page obviously here, nevermind..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still, isn't this reachable from split_huge_pmd() paths and folio is mapped to CPU page tables as a huge device page by one or more task?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The folio only has migration entries pointing to it. From CPU perspective,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not mapped. The unmap_folio() used by __folio_split() unmaps a to-be-split
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio by replacing existing page table entries with migration entries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and after that the folio is regarded as “unmapped”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The migration entry is an invalid CPU page table entry, so it is not a CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split_device_private_folio() is called for device private entry, not migrate entry afaics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but from CPU perspective, both device private entry and migration entry
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are invalid CPU page table entries, so the device private folio is “unmapped”
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at CPU side.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes both are "swap entries" but there's difference, the device private ones contribute to mapcount and refcount.
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That confused me when I was talking to Balbir and looking at v1.
>>>>>>>>>>> When a device private folio is processed in __folio_split(), Balbir needed to
>>>>>>>>>>> add code to skip CPU mapping handling code. Basically device private folios are
>>>>>>>>>>> CPU unmapped and device mapped.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here are my questions on device private folios:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. How is mapcount used for device private folios? Why is it needed from CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>       perspective? Can it be stored in a device private specific data structure?
>>>>>>>>>> Mostly like for normal folios, for instance rmap when doing migrate. I think it would make
>>>>>>>>>> common code more messy if not done that way but sure possible.
>>>>>>>>>> And not consuming pfns (address space) at all would have benefits.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. When a device private folio is mapped on device, can someone other than
>>>>>>>>>>>       the device driver manipulate it assuming core-mm just skips device private
>>>>>>>>>>>       folios (barring the CPU access fault handling)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where I am going is that can device private folios be treated as unmapped folios
>>>>>>>>>>> by CPU and only device driver manipulates their mappings?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes not present by CPU but mm has bookkeeping on them. The private page has no content
>>>>>>>>>> someone could change while in device, it's just pfn.
>>>>>>>>> Just to clarify: a device-private entry, like a device-exclusive entry, is a *page table mapping* tracked through the rmap -- even though they are not present page table entries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be better if they would be present page table entries that are PROT_NONE, but it's tricky to mark them as being "special" device-private, device-exclusive etc. Maybe there are ways to do that in the future.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe device-private could just be PROT_NONE, because we can identify the entry type based on the folio. device-exclusive is harder ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So consider device-private entries just like PROT_NONE present page table entries. Refcount and mapcount is adjusted accordingly by rmap functions.
>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So folio_mapcount() for device private folios should be treated the same
>>>>>>>> as normal folios, even if the corresponding PTEs are not accessible from CPUs.
>>>>>>>> Then I wonder if the device private large folio split should go through
>>>>>>>> __folio_split(), the same as normal folios: unmap, freeze, split, unfreeze,
>>>>>>>> remap. Otherwise, how can we prevent rmap changes during the split?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is true in general, the special cases I mentioned are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. split during migration (where we the sizes on source/destination do not
>>>>>>>      match) and so we need to split in the middle of migration. The entries
>>>>>>>      there are already unmapped and hence the special handling
>>>>>>> 2. Partial unmap case, where we need to split in the context of the unmap
>>>>>>>      due to the isses mentioned in the patch. I expanded the folio split code
>>>>>>>      for device private can be expanded into its own helper, which does not
>>>>>>>      need to do the xas/mapped/lru folio handling. During partial unmap the
>>>>>>>      original folio does get replaced by new anon rmap ptes (split_huge_pmd_locked)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For (2), I spent some time examining the implications of not unmapping the
>>>>>>> folios prior to split and in the partial unmap path, once we split the PMD
>>>>>>> the folios diverge. I did not run into any particular race either with the
>>>>>>> tests.
>>>>>> 1) is totally fine. This was in v1 and lead to Zi's split_unmapped_folio()
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) is a problem because folio is mapped. split_huge_pmd() can be reached also from other than unmap path.
>>>>>> It is vulnerable to races by rmap. And for instance this does not look right without checking:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      folio_ref_freeze(folio, 1 + folio_expected_ref_count(folio));
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can add checks to make sure that the call does succeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You mention 2) is needed because of some later problems in fault path after pmd split. Would it be
>>>>>> possible to split the folio at fault time then?
>>>>> So after the partial unmap, the folio ends up in a little strange situation, the folio is large,
>>>>> but not mapped (since large_mapcount can be 0, after all the folio_rmap_remove_ptes). Calling folio_split()
>>>>> on partially unmapped fails because folio_get_anon_vma() fails due to the folio_mapped() failures
>>>>> related to folio_large_mapcount. There is also additional complexity with ref counts and mapping.
>>>> I think you mean "Calling folio_split() on a *fully* unmapped folio fails ..."
>>>>
>>>> A partially mapped folio still has folio_mapcount() > 0 -> folio_mapped() == true.
>>>>
>>> Looking into this again at my end
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, didn't quite follow what kind of lock recursion did you encounter doing proper split_folio()
>>>>>> instead?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Splitting during partial unmap causes recursive locking issues with anon_vma when invoked from
>>>>> split_huge_pmd_locked() path.
>>>> Yes, that's very complicated.
>>>>
>>> Yes and I want to avoid going down that path.
>>>
>>>>> Deferred splits do not work for device private pages, due to the
>>>>> migration requirements for fault handling.
>>>> Can you elaborate on that?
>>>>
>>> If a folio is under deferred_split() and is still pending a split. When a fault is handled on a partially
>>> mapped folio, the expectation is that as a part of fault handling during migration, the code in migrate_folio_mapping()
>>> assumes that the folio sizes are the same (via check for reference and mapcount)
>> If you hit a partially-mapped folio, instead of migrating, you would actually want to split and then migrate I assume.
> Yes, that is exactly what migrate_pages() does. And if split fails, the migration
> fails too. Device private folio probably should do the same thing, assuming
> splitting device private folio would always succeed.

hmm afaics the normal folio_split wants to use RMP_USE_SHARED_ZEROPAGE when splitting and remapping
device private pages, that can't work..

>
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
>
--Mika

Powered by blists - more mailing lists