linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] userfaultfd: opportunistic TLB-flush batching for present pages in MOVE

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aJn3Z3q_kZl4Nob2@x1.local>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 10:00:07 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, aarcange@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 21cnbao@...il.com,
	ngeoffray@...gle.com, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@...o.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] userfaultfd: opportunistic TLB-flush batching for
 present pages in MOVE

On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 09:29:58AM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:17 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Lokesh,
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2025 at 03:39:02AM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
> > >
> > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
> > >
> > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> >
> > Do you know why vm_normal_folio() could be expensive? I still see quite
> > some other things this path needs to do.
> >
> Let's discuss this in Andrew's reply thread.

Sorry to get back to this late.  Thanks for the link, Andrew!

> 
> > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> > > includes TLB-flush overhead.
> >
> > Indeed this should already prove the optimization, I'm just curious whether
> > you've run some benchmark on the GC app to show the real world benefit.
> >
> I did! The same benchmark through which I gathered these numbers, when
> run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the completion
> time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. The benchmark
> is very GC intensive and the overhead of IPI on vCPUs seems to be
> enormous leading to this drastic improvement.
> 
> In another instance, system_server, one of the most critical system
> processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on
> an arm64 android device.

Would you mind add some of these numbers into the commit message when you
repost?

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu