Hi, Muhammad,
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 04:26:07PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 5/22/23 3:24 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> > On 4/26/23 7:13 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
> >> Hi, Muhammad,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:06:23PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> >>> On 4/20/23 11:01 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> >>>> +/* Supported flags */
> >>>> +#define PM_SCAN_OP_GET (1 << 0)
> >>>> +#define PM_SCAN_OP_WP (1 << 1)
> >>> We have only these flag options available in PAGEMAP_SCAN IOCTL.
> >>> PM_SCAN_OP_GET must always be specified for this IOCTL. PM_SCAN_OP_WP can
> >>> be specified as need. But PM_SCAN_OP_WP cannot be specified without
> >>> PM_SCAN_OP_GET. (This was removed after you had asked me to not duplicate
> >>> functionality which can be achieved by UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT.)
> >>>
> >>> 1) PM_SCAN_OP_GET | PM_SCAN_OP_WP
> >>> vs
> >>> 2) UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT
> >>>
> >>> After removing the usage of uffd_wp_range() from PAGEMAP_SCAN IOCTL, we are
> >>> getting really good performance which is comparable just like we are
> >>> depending on SOFT_DIRTY flags in the PTE. But when we want to perform wp,
> >>> PM_SCAN_OP_GET | PM_SCAN_OP_WP is more desirable than UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT
> >>> performance and behavior wise.
> >>>
> >>> I've got the results from someone else that UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT block
> >>> pagefaults somehow which PAGEMAP_IOCTL doesn't. I still need to verify this
> >>> as I don't have tests comparing them one-to-one.
> >>>
> >>> What are your thoughts about it? Have you thought about making
> >>> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT perform better?
> >>>
> >>> I'm sorry to mention the word "performance" here. Actually we want better
> >>> performance to emulate Windows syscall. That is why we are adding this
> >>> functionality. So either we need to see what can be improved in
> >>> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT or can I please add only PM_SCAN_OP_WP back in
> >>> pagemap_ioctl?
> >>
> >> I'm fine if you want to add it back if it works for you. Though before
> >> that, could you remind me why there can be a difference on performance?
> > I've looked at the code again and I think I've found something. Lets look
> > at exact performance numbers:
> >
> > I've run 2 different tests. In first test UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT is being used
> > for engaging WP. In second test PM_SCAN_OP_WP is being used. I've measured
> > the average write time to the same memory which is being WP-ed and total
> > time of execution of these APIs:
What is the steps of the test? Is it as simple as "writeprotect",
"unprotect", then write all pages in a single thread?
Is UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT sent in one range covering all pages?
Maybe you can attach the test program here too.
> >
> > **avg write time:**
> > | No of pages | 2000 | 8192 | 100000 | 500000 |
> > |------------------------|------|------|--------|--------|
> > | UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT | 2200 | 2300 | 4100 | 4200 |
> > | PM_SCAN_OP_WP | 2000 | 2300 | 2500 | 2800 |
> >
> > **Execution time measured in rdtsc:**
> > | No of pages | 2000 | 8192 | 100000 | 500000 |
> > |------------------------|------|-------|--------|--------|
> > | UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT | 3200 | 14000 | 59000 | 58000 |
> > | PM_SCAN_OP_WP | 1900 | 7000 | 38000 | 40000 |
> >
> > Avg write time for UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT is 1.3 times slow. The execution
> > time is 1.5 times slower in the case of UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT. So
> > UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT is making writes slower to the pages and execution time
> > is also slower.
> >
> > This proves that PM_SCAN_OP_WP is better than UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT. Although
> > PM_SCAN_OP_WP and UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT have been implemented differently. We
> > should have seen no difference in performance. But we have quite a lot of
> > difference in performance here. PM_SCAN_OP_WP takes read mm lock, uses
> > walk_page_range() to walk over pages which finds VMAs from address ranges
> > to walk over them and pagemap_scan_pmd_entry() is handling most of the work
> > including tlb flushing. UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT is also taking the mm lock and
> > iterating from all the different page directories until a pte is found and
> > then flags are updated there and tlb is flushed for every pte.
> >
> > My next deduction would be that we are getting worse performance as we are
> > flushing tlb for one page at a time in case of UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT. While
> > we flush tlb for 512 pages (moslty) at a time in case of PM_SCAN_OP_WP.
> > I've just verified this by adding some logs to the change_pte_range() and
> > pagemap_scan_pmd_entry(). Logs are attached. I've allocated memory of 1000
> > pages and write-protected it with UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT and PM_SCAN_OP_WP.
> > The logs show that UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT has flushed tlb 1000 times of size 1
> > page each time. While PM_SCAN_OP_WP has flushed only 3 times of bigger
> > sizes. I've learned over my last experience that tlb flush is very
> > expensive. Probably this is what we need to improve if we don't want to add
> > PM_SCAN_OP_WP?
> >
> > The UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT uses change_pte_range() which is very generic
> > function and I'm not sure if can try to not do tlb flushes if uffd_wp is
> > true. We can try to do flush somewhere else and hopefully we should do only
> > one flush if possible. It will not be so straight forward to move away from
> > generic fundtion. Thoughts?
> I've just tested this theory of not doing per pte flushes and only did one
> flush on entire range in uffd_wp_range(). But it didn't improve the
> situation either. I was wrong that tlb flushes may be the cause.
I had a feeling that you were trapping tlb_flush_pte_range(), which is
actually not really sending any TLB flushes but updating mmu_gather object
for the addr range for future invalidations.
That's probably why it didn't show an effect when you comment it out.
I am not sure whether the wr-protect path difference can be caused by the
arch hooks, namely arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode() / arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode().
On x86 I saw that it's actually hooked onto some PV calls. I had a feeling
that this is for optimization only, but maybe it's still a good idea you
also take that into your new code:
static inline void arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
{
PVOP_VCALL0(mmu.lazy_mode.enter);
}
The other thing is I think you're flushing tlb outside pgtable lock in your
new code. IIUC that's racy, see:
commit 6ce64428d62026a10cb5d80138ff2f90cc21d367
Author: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Mar 12 21:08:17 2021 -0800
mm/userfaultfd: fix memory corruption due to writeprotect
So you may want to put it at least into pgtable lock critical section, or
IIUC you can also do inc_tlb_flush_pending() then dec_tlb_flush_pending()
just like __tlb_gather_mmu(), to make sure do_wp_page() will properly flush
the page when unluckily hit some of the page.
That's also the spot (the flush_tlb_page() in 6ce64428d) that made me think
on whether it caused the slowness on writting to those pages. But it
really depends on your test program, e.g. if it's a single threaded I don't
think it'll trigger because when writting mm_tlb_flush_pending() should
start to return 0 already, so the tlb should logically not be needed. If
you want maybe you can double check that.
So in short, I had a feeling that the new PM_SCAN_OP_WP just misses
something here and there so it's faster - it means even if it's faster it
may also be prone to race conditions etc so we'd better figure it out..
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
