On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 11:49:25AM -0800, James Houghton wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 11:11 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2023 at 08:43:45AM -0800, James Houghton wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 8:16 AM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:26:02PM -0800, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 3:13 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > James,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:46:04PM -0800, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > > > > > Here is the result: [1] (sorry it took a little while heh). The
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks. From what I can tell, that number shows that it'll be great we
> > > > > > start with your rfcv1 mapcount approach, which mimics what's proposed by
> > > > > > Matthew for generic folio.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think the RFC v1 way is better than doing the THP-like way
> > > > > *with the additional MMU notifier*?
> > > >
> > > > What's the additional MMU notifier you're referring?
> > >
> > > An MMU notifier that informs KVM that a collapse has happened without
> > > having to invalidate_range_start() and invalidate_range_end(), the one
> > > you're replying to lower down in the email. :) [ see below... ]
> >
> > Isn't that something that is needed no matter what mapcount approach we'll
> > go for? Did I miss something?
>
> It's not really needed for anything, but it could be an optimization
> for both approaches. However, for the subpage-mapcount approach, it
> would have a *huge* impact. That's what I mean.
Ah, okay.
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > implementation of the "RFC v1" way is pretty horrible[2] (and this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any more information on why it's horrible? :)
> > > > >
> > > > > I figured the code would speak for itself, heh. It's quite complicated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really didn't like:
> > > > > 1. The 'inc' business in copy_hugetlb_page_range.
> > > > > 2. How/where I call put_page()/folio_put() to keep the refcount and
> > > > > mapcount synced up.
> > > > > 3. Having to check the page cache in UFFDIO_CONTINUE.
> > > >
> > > > I think the complexity is one thing which I'm fine with so far. However
> > > > when I think again about the things behind that complexity, I noticed there
> > > > may be at least one flaw that may not be trivial to work around.
> > > >
> > > > It's about truncation. The problem is now we use the pgtable entry to
> > > > represent the mapcount, but the pgtable entry cannot be zapped easily,
> > > > unless vma unmapped or collapsed.
> > > >
> > > > It means e.g. truncate_inode_folio() may stop working for hugetlb (of
> > > > course, with page lock held). The mappings will be removed for real, but
> > > > not the mapcount for HGM anymore, because unmap_mapping_folio() only zaps
> > > > the pgtable leaves, not the ones that we used to account for mapcounts.
> > > >
> > > > So the kernel may see weird things, like mapcount>0 after
> > > > truncate_inode_folio() being finished completely.
> > > >
> > > > For HGM to do the right thing, we may want to also remove the non-leaf
> > > > entries when truncating or doing similar things like a rmap walk to drop
> > > > any mappings for a page/folio. Though that's not doable for now because
> > > > the locks that truncate_inode_folio() is weaker than what we need to free
> > > > the pgtable non-leaf entries - we'll need mmap write lock for that, the
> > > > same as when we unmap or collapse.
> > > >
> > > > Matthew's design doesn't have such issue if the ptes need to be populated,
> > > > because mapcount is still with the leaves; not the case for us here.
> > > >
> > > > If that's the case, _maybe_ we still need to start with the stupid but
> > > > working approach of subpage mapcounts.
> > >
> > > Good point. I can't immediately think of a solution. I would prefer to
> > > go with the subpage mapcount approach to simplify HGM for now;
> > > optimizing mapcount for HugeTLB can then be handled separately. If
> > > you're ok with this, I'll go ahead and send v2.
> >
> > I'm okay with it, but I suggest wait for at least another one day or two to
> > see whether Mike or others have any comments.
>
> Ok. :)
>
> >
> > >
> > > One way that might be possible: using the PAGE_SPECIAL bit on the
> > > hstate-level PTE to indicate if mapcount has been incremented or not
> > > (if the PTE is pointing to page tables). As far as I can tell,
> > > PAGE_SPECIAL doesn't carry any meaning for HugeTLB PTEs, but we would
> > > need to be careful with existing PTE examination code as to not
> > > misinterpret these PTEs.
> >
> > This is an interesting idea. :) Yes I don't see it being used at all in any
> > pgtable non-leaves.
> >
> > Then it's about how to let the zap code know when to remove the special
> > bit, hence the mapcount, because not all of them should.
> >
> > Maybe it can be passed over as a new zap_flags_t bit?
>
> Here[1] is one way it could be done (it doesn't work 100% correctly,
> it's just approximately what we could do). Basically we pass in the
> entire range that we are unmapping ("floor" and "ceil"), and if
> hugetlb_remove_rmap finds that we're doing the final removal of a page
> that we are entirely unmapping (i.e., floor <= addr &
> huge_page_mask(h)). Having a zap flag would probably work too.
Yeah maybe flags are not needed at all. I had a quick glance, looks good
in general.
I think the trick is when it's not unmapped in a single shot. Consider
someone zaps the first half of HGM-mapped hpage then the other half. The
range may not always tell the whole story so rmap might be left over in
some cases.
But maybe it is not a big deal. The only thing I think of so far is the
partial DONTNEED. but I think maybe it's fine to leave it there until
another more serious request to either truncate or unmap it. At least all
rmap walks should work as expected.
>
> I think something like [1] ought to go in its own series. :)
>
> [1]: https://github.com/48ca/linux/commit/de884eaaadf61b8dcfb1defd99bbf487667e46f4
Yes I agree it can be worked on top.
--
Peter Xu
