On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 09:18:43AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > On Jun 14, 2022, at 8:22 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 13.06.22 22:40, Nadav Amit wrote: > >> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> As we know, using a PTE on x86 with cleared access-bit (aka young-bit) > >> takes ~600 cycles more than when the access-bit is set. At the same > >> time, setting the access-bit for memory that is not used (e.g., > >> prefetched) can introduce greater overheads, as the prefetched memory is > >> reclaimed later than it should be. > >> > >> Userfaultfd currently does not set the access-bit (excluding the > >> huge-pages case). Arguably, it is best to let the uffd monitor control > >> whether the access-bit should be set or not. The expected use is for the > >> monitor to request userfaultfd to set the access-bit when the copy > >> operation is done to resolve a page-fault, and not to set the young-bit > >> when the memory is prefetched. > > > > Thinking out loud about existing users: postcopy live migration in QEMU > > has two usage for placement of pages > > > > a) Resolving a fault. E.g., a VCPU might be waiting for resolution to > > make progress. > > b) Background migration to converge without faults on all relevant > > pages. > > > > I guess in a) we'd want UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_YOUNG in b) we don't want it. > > > > > > I wonder, however, instead of calling this "young", which implies what > > the OS should or shouldn't do, to define this as a hint that the placed > > page is very likely to be accessed next. > > > > I'm bad at naming, UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_ACCESS_LIKELY would express what I > > have in mind. > > How about UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_WILLNEED_READ ? > > > > >> Introduce UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_YOUNG to enable userspace to request the > >> young bit to be set. For UFFDIO_CONTINUE and UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE set the bit > >> unconditionally since the former is only used to resolve page-faults and > >> the latter would not benefit from not setting the access-bit. > >> > >> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> There are 2 possible enhancements: > >> > >> 1. Use the flag to decide on whether to mark the PTE as dirty (for > >> writable PTEs). I guess that setting the dirty-bit is as expensive as > >> setting the access-bit, and setting it introduces similar tradeoffs, > >> as mentioned above. > >> > >> 2. Introduce a similar mode for write-protect and use this information > >> for setting both the young and dirty bits. Makes one wonder whether > >> mprotect() should also set the bit in certain cases... > > > > I wonder if UFFDIO_COPY_MODE_READ_ACCESS_LIKELY vs. > > UFFDIO_COPY_WRITE_ACCESS_LIKELY could evenmake sense. I feel like it could. > > > > For example, QEMU knows if a page fault it's resolving was due to a read > > or a write fault and could use that information accordingly. Of course, > > we don't completely know if we currently have a read fault, if we could > > get a write fault immediately after. > > > > Especially in the context of UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE, > > UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE_WRITE_ACCESS_LIKELY could ... not place the zeropage but > > instead populate an actual page and mark it accessed+dirty. I even have > > a use case for that ;) > > > > > > The kernel could decide how to treat these hints -- for example, if it > > doesn't want user space to mess with access/dirty bits, it could just > > mostly ignore the hints. > > I can do that. I think users can do the zero page-copy themselves today, but > whatever you prefer. > > But, I cannot take it anymore: the list of arguments for uffd stuff is > crazy. I would like to collect all the possible arguments that are used for > uffd operation into some “struct uffd_op”. Squashing boolean parameters into int flags will also reduce the insane amount of parameters. No strong feelings though. > Any objection? > > -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
