On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 08:32:05AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:33:11AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote:
> > On 10/24/19 6:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 05:19:35AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > > We have usecase to use tmpfs as QEMU memory backend and we would like to
> > > > take the advantage of THP as well. But, our test shows the EPT is not
> > > > PMD mapped even though the underlying THP are PMD mapped on host.
> > > > The number showed by /sys/kernel/debug/kvm/largepage is much less than
> > > > the number of PMD mapped shmem pages as the below:
> > > >
> > > > 7f2778200000-7f2878200000 rw-s 00000000 00:14 262232 /dev/shm/qemu_back_mem.mem.Hz2hSf (deleted)
> > > > Size: 4194304 kB
> > > > [snip]
> > > > AnonHugePages: 0 kB
> > > > ShmemPmdMapped: 579584 kB
> > > > [snip]
> > > > Locked: 0 kB
> > > >
> > > > cat /sys/kernel/debug/kvm/largepages
> > > > 12
> > > >
> > > > And some benchmarks do worse than with anonymous THPs.
> > > >
> > > > By digging into the code we figured out that commit 127393fbe597 ("mm:
> > > > thp: kvm: fix memory corruption in KVM with THP enabled") checks if
> > > > there is a single PTE mapping on the page for anonymous THP when
> > > > setting up EPT map. But, the _mapcount < 0 check doesn't fit to page
> > > > cache THP since every subpage of page cache THP would get _mapcount
> > > > inc'ed once it is PMD mapped, so PageTransCompoundMap() always returns
> > > > false for page cache THP. This would prevent KVM from setting up PMD
> > > > mapped EPT entry.
> > > >
> > > > So we need handle page cache THP correctly. However, when page cache
> > > > THP's PMD gets split, kernel just remove the map instead of setting up
> > > > PTE map like what anonymous THP does. Before KVM calls get_user_pages()
> > > > the subpages may get PTE mapped even though it is still a THP since the
> > > > page cache THP may be mapped by other processes at the mean time.
> > > >
> > > > Checking its _mapcount and whether the THP has PTE mapped or not.
> > > > Although this may report some false negative cases (PTE mapped by other
> > > > processes), it looks not trivial to make this accurate.
> > > I don't understand why you care how it's mapped into userspace. If there
> > > is a PMD-sized page in the page cache, then you can use a PMD mapping
> > > in the EPT tables to map it. Why would another process having a PTE
> > > mapping on the page cause you to not use a PMD mapping?
> >
> > We don't care if the THP is PTE mapped by other process, but either
> > PageDoubleMap flag or _mapcount/compound_mapcount can't tell us if the PTE
> > map comes from the current process or other process unless gup could return
> > pmd's status.
>
> But why do you care if the THP is PTE mapped by _this_ process?
> This process has a reference to the page; the page is PMD sized and PMD
> aligned, so you can use a PMD mapping in the guest, regardless of how
> it's mapped by userspace. Maybe this process doesn't even have the page
> mapped at all?
Consider the case with MAP_PRIVATE. If part of the THP was overritten in
the process, you want EPT to reflect the case, not map the page from page
cache regardless.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
