On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:40:59 +0000 Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Change the readahead config so that if it is being requested for an
> executable mapping, do a synchronous read of an arch-specified size in a
> naturally aligned manner.
Some nits:
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -1115,6 +1115,18 @@ static inline void update_mmu_cache_range(struct vm_fault *vmf,
> */
> #define arch_wants_old_prefaulted_pte cpu_has_hw_af
>
> +/*
> + * Request exec memory is read into pagecache in at least 64K folios. The
> + * trade-off here is performance improvement due to storing translations more
> + * effciently in the iTLB vs the potential for read amplification due to reading
"efficiently"
> + * data from disk that won't be used. The latter is independent of base page
> + * size, so we set a page-size independent block size of 64K. This size can be
> + * contpte-mapped when 4K base pages are in use (16 pages into 1 iTLB entry),
> + * and HPA can coalesce it (4 pages into 1 TLB entry) when 16K base pages are in
> + * use.
> + */
> +#define arch_wants_exec_folio_order() ilog2(SZ_64K >> PAGE_SHIFT)
> +
To my eye, "arch_wants_foo" and "arch_want_foo" are booleans. Either
this arch wants a particular treatment or it does not want it.
I suggest a better name would be "arch_exec_folio_order".
> static inline bool pud_sect_supported(void)
> {
> return PAGE_SIZE == SZ_4K;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> index aab227e12493..6cdd145cbbb9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> @@ -407,6 +407,18 @@ static inline bool arch_has_hw_pte_young(void)
> }
> #endif
>
> +#ifndef arch_wants_exec_folio_order
> +/*
> + * Returns preferred minimum folio order for executable file-backed memory. Must
> + * be in range [0, PMD_ORDER]. Negative value implies that the HW has no
> + * preference and mm will not special-case executable memory in the pagecache.
> + */
I think this comment contains material which would be useful above the
other arch_wants_exec_folio_order() implementation - the "must be in
range" part. So I suggest all this material be incorporated into a
single comment which describes arch_wants_exec_folio_order(). Then
this comment can be removed entirely. Assume the reader knows to go
seek the other definition for the commentary.
> +static inline int arch_wants_exec_folio_order(void)
> +{
> + return -1;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> #ifndef arch_check_zapped_pte
> static inline void arch_check_zapped_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte_t pte)
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 142864338ca4..7954274de11c 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -3118,6 +3118,25 @@ static struct file *do_sync_mmap_readahead(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> }
> #endif
>
> + /*
> + * Allow arch to request a preferred minimum folio order for executable
> + * memory. This can often be beneficial to performance if (e.g.) arm64
> + * can contpte-map the folio. Executable memory rarely benefits from
> + * read-ahead anyway, due to its random access nature.
"readahead"
> + */
> + if (vm_flags & VM_EXEC) {
> + int order = arch_wants_exec_folio_order();
> +
> + if (order >= 0) {
> + fpin = maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io(vmf, fpin);
> + ra->size = 1UL << order;
> + ra->async_size = 0;
> + ractl._index &= ~((unsigned long)ra->size - 1);
> + page_cache_ra_order(&ractl, ra, order);
> + return fpin;
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* If we don't want any read-ahead, don't bother */
> if (vm_flags & VM_RAND_READ)
> return fpin;
