On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 03:24:45PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/29/22 14:39, James Houghton wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:04 PM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/29/22 14:09, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:51:53PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > > > On 06/24/22 17:36, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > > > This is needed to handle PTL locking with high-granularity mapping. We
> > > > > > won't always be using the PMD-level PTL even if we're using the 2M
> > > > > > hugepage hstate. It's possible that we're dealing with 4K PTEs, in which
> > > > > > case, we need to lock the PTL for the 4K PTE.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not really sure why this would be required.
> > > > > Why not use the PMD level lock for 4K PTEs? Seems that would scale better
> > > > > with less contention than using the more coarse mm lock.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your words make me thing of another question unrelated to this patch.
> > > > We __know__ that arm64 supports continues PTE HugeTLB. huge_pte_lockptr()
> > > > did not consider this case, in this case, those HugeTLB pages are contended
> > > > with mm lock. Seems we should optimize this case. Something like:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > index 0d790fa3f297..68a1e071bfc0 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > @@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ static inline gfp_t htlb_modify_alloc_mask(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > > static inline spinlock_t *huge_pte_lockptr(struct hstate *h,
> > > > struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *pte)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (huge_page_size(h) == PMD_SIZE)
> > > > + if (huge_page_size(h) <= PMD_SIZE)
> > > > return pmd_lockptr(mm, (pmd_t *) pte);
> > > > VM_BUG_ON(huge_page_size(h) == PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > return &mm->page_table_lock;
> > > >
> > > > I did not check if elsewhere needs to be changed as well. Just a primary
> > > > thought.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this works. If hugetlb_pte_size(hpte) is PAGE_SIZE,
> > then `hpte.ptep` will be a pte_t, not a pmd_t -- I assume that breaks
> > things. So I think, when doing a HugeTLB PT walk down to PAGE_SIZE, we
> > need to separately keep track of the location of the PMD so that we
> > can use it to get the PMD lock.
>
> I assume Muchun was talking about changing this in current code (before
> your changes) where huge_page_size(h) can not be PAGE_SIZE.
>
Yes, that's what I meant.
Thanks.
