On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:37 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/08/2023 00:21, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:07 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07/08/2023 06:24, Yu Zhao wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 3:52 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Introduce LARGE_ANON_FOLIO feature, which allows anonymous memory to be
> >>>> allocated in large folios of a determined order. All pages of the large
> >>>> folio are pte-mapped during the same page fault, significantly reducing
> >>>> the number of page faults. The number of per-page operations (e.g. ref
> >>>> counting, rmap management lru list management) are also significantly
> >>>> reduced since those ops now become per-folio.
> >>>>
> >>>> The new behaviour is hidden behind the new LARGE_ANON_FOLIO Kconfig,
> >>>> which defaults to disabled for now; The long term aim is for this to
> >>>> defaut to enabled, but there are some risks around internal
> >>>> fragmentation that need to be better understood first.
> >>>>
> >>>> When enabled, the folio order is determined as such: For a vma, process
> >>>> or system that has explicitly disabled THP, we continue to allocate
> >>>> order-0. THP is most likely disabled to avoid any possible internal
> >>>> fragmentation so we honour that request.
> >>>>
> >>>> Otherwise, the return value of arch_wants_pte_order() is used. For vmas
> >>>> that have not explicitly opted-in to use transparent hugepages (e.g.
> >>>> where thp=madvise and the vma does not have MADV_HUGEPAGE), then
> >>>> arch_wants_pte_order() is limited to 64K (or PAGE_SIZE, whichever is
> >>>> bigger). This allows for a performance boost without requiring any
> >>>> explicit opt-in from the workload while limitting internal
> >>>> fragmentation.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the preferred order can't be used (e.g. because the folio would
> >>>> breach the bounds of the vma, or because ptes in the region are already
> >>>> mapped) then we fall back to a suitable lower order; first
> >>>> PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER, then order-0.
> >>>>
> >>>> arch_wants_pte_order() can be overridden by the architecture if desired.
> >>>> Some architectures (e.g. arm64) can coalsece TLB entries if a contiguous
> >>>> set of ptes map physically contigious, naturally aligned memory, so this
> >>>> mechanism allows the architecture to optimize as required.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we add the default implementation of arch_wants_pte_order(), used
> >>>> when the architecture does not define it, which returns -1, implying
> >>>> that the HW has no preference. In this case, mm will choose it's own
> >>>> default order.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> include/linux/pgtable.h | 13 ++++
> >>>> mm/Kconfig | 10 +++
> >>>> mm/memory.c | 166 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>> 3 files changed, 172 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >>>> index 5063b482e34f..2a1d83775837 100644
> >>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
> >>>> @@ -313,6 +313,19 @@ static inline bool arch_has_hw_pte_young(void)
> >>>> }
> >>>> #endif
> >>>>
> >>>> +#ifndef arch_wants_pte_order
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Returns preferred folio order for pte-mapped memory. Must be in range [0,
> >>>> + * PMD_SHIFT-PAGE_SHIFT) and must not be order-1 since THP requires large folios
> >>>> + * to be at least order-2. Negative value implies that the HW has no preference
> >>>> + * and mm will choose it's own default order.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static inline int arch_wants_pte_order(void)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + return -1;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +#endif
> >>>> +
> >>>> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_GET_AND_CLEAR
> >>>> static inline pte_t ptep_get_and_clear(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >>>> unsigned long address,
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/Kconfig b/mm/Kconfig
> >>>> index 09130434e30d..fa61ea160447 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
> >>>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
> >>>> @@ -1238,4 +1238,14 @@ config LOCK_MM_AND_FIND_VMA
> >>>>
> >>>> source "mm/damon/Kconfig"
> >>>>
> >>>> +config LARGE_ANON_FOLIO
> >>>> + bool "Allocate large folios for anonymous memory"
> >>>> + depends on TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> >>>> + default n
> >>>> + help
> >>>> + Use large (bigger than order-0) folios to back anonymous memory where
> >>>> + possible, even for pte-mapped memory. This reduces the number of page
> >>>> + faults, as well as other per-page overheads to improve performance for
> >>>> + many workloads.
> >>>> +
> >>>> endmenu
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> >>>> index 01f39e8144ef..64c3f242c49a 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> >>>> @@ -4050,6 +4050,127 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static bool vmf_pte_range_changed(struct vm_fault *vmf, int nr_pages)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int i;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (nr_pages == 1)
> >>>> + return vmf_pte_changed(vmf);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
> >>>> + if (!pte_none(ptep_get_lockless(vmf->pte + i)))
> >>>> + return true;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return false;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LARGE_ANON_FOLIO
> >>>> +#define ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED \
> >>>> + (ilog2(max_t(unsigned long, SZ_64K, PAGE_SIZE)) - PAGE_SHIFT)
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int anon_folio_order(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int order;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * If THP is explicitly disabled for either the vma, the process or the
> >>>> + * system, then this is very likely intended to limit internal
> >>>> + * fragmentation; in this case, don't attempt to allocate a large
> >>>> + * anonymous folio.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Else, if the vma is eligible for thp, allocate a large folio of the
> >>>> + * size preferred by the arch. Or if the arch requested a very small
> >>>> + * size or didn't request a size, then use PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER,
> >>>> + * which still meets the arch's requirements but means we still take
> >>>> + * advantage of SW optimizations (e.g. fewer page faults).
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * Finally if thp is enabled but the vma isn't eligible, take the
> >>>> + * arch-preferred size and limit it to ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED.
> >>>> + * This ensures workloads that have not explicitly opted-in take benefit
> >>>> + * while capping the potential for internal fragmentation.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_NOHUGEPAGE) ||
> >>>> + test_bit(MMF_DISABLE_THP, &vma->vm_mm->flags) ||
> >>>> + !hugepage_flags_enabled())
> >>>> + order = 0;
> >>>> + else {
> >>>> + order = max(arch_wants_pte_order(), PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!hugepage_vma_check(vma, vma->vm_flags, false, true, true))
> >>>> + order = min(order, ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return order;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int alloc_anon_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio **folio)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int i;
> >>>> + gfp_t gfp;
> >>>> + pte_t *pte;
> >>>> + unsigned long addr;
> >>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> >>>> + int prefer = anon_folio_order(vma);
> >>>> + int orders[] = {
> >>>> + prefer,
> >>>> + prefer > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER ? PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER : 0,
> >>>> + 0,
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>> + *folio = NULL;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (vmf_orig_pte_uffd_wp(vmf))
> >>>> + goto fallback;
> >>>
> >>> Per the discussion, we need to check hugepage_vma_check() for
> >>> correctness of VM LM. I'd just check it here and fall back to order 0
> >>> if that helper returns false.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if either you haven't noticed the logic in anon_folio_order()
> >> above, or whether you are making this suggestion because you disagree with the
> >> subtle difference in my logic?
> >
> > The latter, or more generally the policy you described earlier.
> >
> >> My logic is deliberately not calling hugepage_vma_check() because that would
> >> return false for the thp=madvise,mmap=unhinted case, whereas the policy I'm
> >> implementing wants to apply LAF in that case.
> >>
> >>
> >> My intended policy:
> >>
> >> | never | madvise | always
> >> ----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------
> >> no hint | S | LAF>S | THP>LAF>S
> >> MADV_HUGEPAGE | S | THP>LAF>S | THP>LAF>S
> >> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE | S | S | S
> >>
> >>
> >> What your suggestion would give:
> >>
> >> | never | madvise | always
> >> ----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------
> >> no hint | S | S | THP>LAF>S
> >> MADV_HUGEPAGE | S | THP>LAF>S | THP>LAF>S
> >> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE | S | S | S
> >
> > This is not what I'm suggesting.
> >
> > Let me reiterate [1]:
> > My impression is we only agreed on one thing: at the current stage, we
> > should respect things we absolutely have to. We didn't agree on what
> > "never" means ("never 2MB" or "never >4KB"), and we didn't touch on
> > how "always" should behave at all.
> >
> > And [2]:
> > (Thanks to David, now I agree that) we have to interpret MADV_NOHUGEPAGE
> > as nothing >4KB.
> >
> > My final take [3]:
> > I agree these points require more discussion. But I don't think we
> > need to conclude them now, unless they cause correctness issues like
> > ignoring MADV_NOHUGEPAGE would.
>
> Thanks, I've read all of these comments previously, and appreciate the time you
> have put into the feedback. I'm not sure I fully agree with your point that we
> don't need to conclude on a policy now; I certainly don't think we need the
> whole thing in place on day 1, but I do think that whatever we put in should
> strive to be a strict subset of where we think we are going. For example, if we
> put something in with one policy (i.e. "never" only means "never 2MB") then find
> a problem and have to change that to be more conservative, are we risking perf
> regressions for any LAF users that started using it on day 1?
It's not that I don't want to -- I just don't think we have enough
information before we have a wider deployment [1] and gain a better
understanding of real-world scenarios.
Of course we could force a conclusion, a mostly opinion-based one. But
it would still involve prolonged discussions and delay this series, or
rush into decisions we might regret later.
[1] Our fleets (servers, laptops and phones) support large-scale
experiments and I plan to run them on both client and server devices.
> > But I should have been clear about the parameters to
> > hugepage_vma_check(): enforce_sysfs=false.
>
> So hugepage_vma_check(..., smaps=false, in_pf=true, enforce_sysfs=false) would
> give us:
>
> | prctl/fw | sysfs | sysfs | sysfs
> | disable | never | madvise | always
> ----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------
> no hint | S | LAF>S | LAF>S | THP>LAF>S
> MADV_HUGEPAGE | S | LAF>S | THP>LAF>S | THP>LAF>S
> MADV_NOHUGEPAGE | S | S | S | S
>
> Where "prctl/fw disable" trumps the sysfs setting.
>
> I can certainly see the benefit of this approach; it gives us a way to enable
> LAF while disabling THP (thp=never). It doesn't give us a way to enable THP
> without enabling LAF though (unless you recompile with LAF disabled). Does
> anyone see a problem with this?
I do myself :)
This is just something temporary to get this series landed. We are
hiding behind a Kconfig, not making any ABI changes, and not exposing
this policy to userspace (i.e., not updating Documentation/, man
pages, etc.)
Meanwhile, we can keep discussing all the open questions in parallel.
