On 8/11/2023 10:33 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2023, at 1:34, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2023 9:04 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug 2023, at 20:36, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/11/2023 3:46 AM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>>>> On 10 Aug 2023, at 15:12, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/08/2023 18:01, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 8:30 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Large anonymous folio (LAF) allocation is integrated with the existing
>>>>>>>> (PMD-order) THP and single (S) page allocation according to this policy,
>>>>>>>> where fallback (>) is performed for various reasons, such as the
>>>>>>>> proposed folio order not fitting within the bounds of the VMA, etc:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> | prctl=dis | prctl=ena | prctl=ena | prctl=ena
>>>>>>>> | sysfs=X | sysfs=never | sysfs=madvise | sysfs=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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This approach ensures that we don't violate existing hints to only
>>>>>>>> allocate single pages - this is required for QEMU's VM live migration
>>>>>>>> implementation to work correctly - while allowing us to use LAF
>>>>>>>> independently of THP (when sysfs=never). This makes wide scale
>>>>>>>> performance characterization simpler, while avoiding exposing any new
>>>>>>>> ABI to user space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When using LAF for allocation, the folio order is determined as follows:
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> sysfs=madvise and the vma does not have MADV_HUGEPAGE or sysfs=never),
>>>>>>>> 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 | 144 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> index 222a33b9600d..4b488cc66ddc 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -369,6 +369,19 @@ 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 721dc88423c7..a1e28b8ddc24 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/Kconfig
>>>>>>>> @@ -1243,4 +1243,14 @@ 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 d003076b218d..bbc7d4ce84f7 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -4073,6 +4073,123 @@ 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 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).
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * If the vma isn't eligible for thp, 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.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + 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;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't understand why we still want to keep ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED.
>>>>>>> 1. It's not used, since no archs at the moment implement
>>>>>>> arch_wants_pte_order() that returns >64KB.
>>>>>>> 2. As far as I know, there is no plan for any arch to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My rationale is that arm64 is planning to use this for contpte mapping 2MB
>>>>>> blocks for 16K and 64K kernels. But I think we will all agree that allowing 2MB
>>>>>> blocks without the proper THP hinting is a bad plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I see it, arches could add their own arch_wants_pte_order() at any time, and
>>>>>> just because the HW has a preference, doesn't mean the SW shouldn't get a say.
>>>>>> Its a negotiation between HW and SW for the LAF order, embodied in this policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Again, it seems to me the rationale behind
>>>>>>> ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED isn't convincing at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we introduce ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED if/when needed please?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also you made arch_wants_pte_order() return -1, and I acknowledged [1]:
>>>>>>> Thanks: -1 actually is better than 0 (what I suggested) for the
>>>>>>> obvious reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought we were on the same page, i.e., the "obvious reason" is that
>>>>>>> h/w might prefer 0. But here you are not respecting 0. But then why
>>>>>>> -1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that the "obvious reason" is that HW might prefer order-0. But the
>>>>>> performance wins don't come solely from the HW. Batching up page faults is a big
>>>>>> win for SW even if the HW doesn't benefit. So I think it is important that a HW
>>>>>> preference of order-0 is possible to express through this API. But that doesn't
>>>>>> mean that we don't listen to SW's preferences either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would really rather leave it in; As I've mentioned in the past, we have a
>>>>>> partner who is actively keen to take advantage of 2MB blocks with 64K kernel and
>>>>>> this is the mechanism that means we don't dole out those 2MB blocks unless
>>>>>> explicitly opted-in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to be out on holiday for a couple of weeks, so we might have to wait
>>>>>> until I'm back to conclude on this, if you still take issue with the justification.
>>>>>
>>>>> From my understanding (correct me if I am wrong), Yu seems to want order-0 to be
>>>>> the default order even if LAF is enabled. But that does not make sense to me, since
>>>>> if LAF is configured to be enabled (it is disabled by default now), user (and distros)
>>>>> must think LAF is giving benefit. Otherwise, they will just disable LAF at compilation
>>>>> time or by using prctl. Enabling LAF and using order-0 as the default order makes
>>>>> most of LAF code not used.
>>>> For the device with limited memory size and it still wants LAF enabled for some specific
>>>> memory ranges, it's possible the LAF is enabled, order-0 as default order and use madvise
>>>> to enable LAF for specific memory ranges.
>>>
>>> Do you have a use case? Or it is just a possible scenario?
>> It's a possible scenario. Per my experience, it's valid use case for embedded
>> system or low end android phone.
>>
>>>
>>> IIUC, Ryan has a concrete use case for his choice. For ARM64 with 16KB/64KB
>>> base pages, 2MB folios (LAF in this config) would be desirable since THP is
>>> 32MB/512MB and much harder to get.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So my understanding is it's possible case. But it's another configuration thing and not
>>>> necessary to be finalized now.
>>>
>>> Basically, we are deciding whether LAF should use order-0 by default once it is
>>> compiled in to kernel. From your other email on ANON_FOLIO_MAX_ORDER_UNHINTED,
>>> your argument is that code change is needed to test the impact of LAF with
>>> different orders. That seems to imply we actually need an extra knob (maybe sysctl)
>>> to control the max LAF order. And with that extra knob, we can solve this default
>>> order problem, since we can set it to 0 for devices want to opt in LAF and set
>>> it N (like 64KB) for other devices want to opt out LAF.
>> From performance tuning perspective, it's necessary to have knobs to configure and
>> check the attribute of LAF. But we must be careful to add the knobs as they need
>> be maintained for ever.
>
> If we do not want to maintain such a knob (since it may take some time to finalize)
> and tweaking LAF order is important for us to explore different LAF configurations
> (Ryan thinks 64KB will perform well on ARM64, whereas Yu mentioned 16KB/32KB is
> better in his use cases), we probably just put the LAF order knob in debugfs
> like Ryan suggested before to move forward.
Works for me.
>
>
>>>
>>> So maybe we need the extra knob for both testing purpose and serving different
>>> device configuration purpose.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also arch_wants_pte_order() might need a better name like
>>>>> arch_wants_large_folio_order(). Since current name sounds like the specified order
>>>>> is wanted by HW in a general setting, but it is not. It is an order HW wants
>>>>> when LAF is enabled. That might cause some confusion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAOUHufZ7HJZW8Srwatyudf=FbwTGQtyq4DyL2SHwSg37N_Bo_A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> Yan, Zi
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Yan, Zi
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Yan, Zi
