On 20/12/2023 11:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.12.23 12:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 20/12/2023 11:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 20.12.23 12:28, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> On 20/12/2023 10:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 20.12.23 11:41, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20.12.23 11:11, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20.12.23 10:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 18:42, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/12/2023 17:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 09:30, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/12/2023 17:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18.12.23 11:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Convert copy_pte_range() to copy a batch of ptes in one go. A given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch is determined by the architecture with the new helper,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pte_batch_remaining(), and maps a physically contiguous block of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all belonging to the same folio. A pte batch is then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write-protected in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one go in the parent using the new helper, ptep_set_wrprotects()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in one go in the child using the new helper, set_ptes_full().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The primary motivation for this change is to reduce the number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of tlb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance operations that the arm64 backend has to perform during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fork, as it is about to add transparent support for the "contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in its ptes. By write-protecting the parent using the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptep_set_wrprotects() (note the 's' at the end) function, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can avoid having to unfold contig ranges of PTEs, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when all ptes in the range are being write-protected. Similarly, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using set_ptes_full() rather than set_pte_at() to set up ptes in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child, the backend does not need to fold a contiguous range once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all populated - they can be initially populated as a contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very performance sensitive, and a significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort has been put into not regressing performance for the order-0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio case. By default, pte_batch_remaining() is compile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which enables the compiler to simplify the extra loops that are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batching and produce code that is equivalent (and equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performant) as the previous implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This change addresses the core-mm refactoring only and a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will implement pte_batch_remaining(), ptep_set_wrprotects() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set_ptes_full() in the arm64 backend to realize the performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement as part of the work to enable contpte mappings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ensure the arm64 is performant once implemented, this change is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful to only call ptep_get() once per pte batch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following microbenchmark results demonstate that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant performance change after this patch. Fork is called
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tight loop in a process with 1G of populated memory and the time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to execute is measured. 100 iterations per run, 8 runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed on both Apple M2 (VM) and Ampere Altra (bare metal).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed for case where 1G memory is comprised of order-0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folios and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case where comprised of pte-mapped order-9 folios. Negative is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive is slower, compared to baseline upon which the series is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Apple M2 VM | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench | mean | stdev | mean | stdev |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline | 0.0% | 1.1% | 0.0% | 1.2% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change | -1.0% | 2.0% | -0.1% | 1.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Ampere Altra | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench | mean | stdev | mean | stdev |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline | 0.0% | 1.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change | -0.1% | 1.2% | -0.1% | 0.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include/linux/pgtable.h | 80
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mm/memory.c | 92
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index af7639c3b0a3..db93fb81465a 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -205,6 +205,27 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #define arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode() do {} while (0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#ifndef pte_batch_remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * pte_batch_remaining - Number of pages from addr to next batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @pte: Page table entry for the first page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @addr: Address of the first page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @end: Batch ceiling (e.g. end of vma).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * Some architectures (arm64) can efficiently modify a contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * In such cases, this function returns the remaining number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * of the current batch, as defined by addr. This can be useful
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iterating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * over ptes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * May be overridden by the architecture, else batch size is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline unsigned int pte_batch_remaining(pte_t pte, unsigned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addr,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + unsigned long end)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a shame we now lose the optimization for all other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archtiectures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there no way to have some basic batching mechanism that doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried a bunch of things but ultimately the way I've done it was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the order-0 fork regression to 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original v3 posting was costing 5% extra and even my first attempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch-specific version that didn't resolve to a compile-time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constant 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost an extra 3%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that something very basic would have worked like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check if PTE is the same when setting the PFN to 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that PFN is consecutive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that all PFNs belong to the same folio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't tried this exact approach, but I'd be surprised if I can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regression under 4% with this. Further along the series I spent a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having to fiddle with the arm64 implementation; every conditional and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory read (even when in cache) was a problem. There is just so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner loop that every instruction matters. (At least on Ampere Altra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M2).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're willing to pay that 4-5% for order-0 then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9 is around 10% in my measurements. Personally though, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe and ensure the common order-0 case doesn't regress, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just hacked something up, on top of my beloved rmap cleanup/batching
>>>>>>>>>>>>> series. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented very generic and simple batching for large folios (all PTE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except the PFN have to match).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some very quick testing (don't trust each last % ) on Intel(R) Xeon(R)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4210R CPU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-0: 0.014210 -> 0.013969
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 1.7 % faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9: 0.014373 -> 0.009149
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 36.3 % faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well I guess that shows me :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll do a review and run the tests on my HW to see if it concurs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I pushed a simple compile fixup (we need pte_next_pfn()).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've just been trying to compile and noticed this. Will take a look at
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But upon review, I've noticed the part that I think makes this difficult
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> arm64 with the contpte optimization; You are calling ptep_get() for every
>>>>>>>>>> pte in
>>>>>>>>>> the batch. While this is functionally correct, once arm64 has the contpte
>>>>>>>>>> changes, its ptep_get() has to read every pte in the contpte block in
>>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>>> gather the access and dirty bits. So if your batching function ends up
>>>>>>>>>> wealking
>>>>>>>>>> a 16 entry contpte block, that will cause 16 x 16 reads, which kills
>>>>>>>>>> performance. That's why I added the arch-specific pte_batch_remaining()
>>>>>>>>>> function; this allows the core-mm to skip to the end of the contpte
>>>>>>>>>> block and
>>>>>>>>>> avoid ptep_get() for the 15 tail ptes. So we end up with 16 READ_ONCE()s
>>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>>> of 256.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I considered making a ptep_get_noyoungdirty() variant, which would avoid
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>>> gathering. But we have a similar problem in zap_pte_range() and that
>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>> needs the dirty bit to update the folio. So it doesn't work there. (see
>>>>>>>>>> patch 3
>>>>>>>>>> in my series).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are going to say that we should combine both approaches, so
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> your batching loop can skip forward an arch-provided number of ptes? That
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> certainly work, but feels like an orthogonal change to what I'm trying to
>>>>>>>>>> achieve :). Anyway, I'll spend some time playing with it today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can overwrite the function or add special-casing internally, yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right now, your patch is called "mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork()"
>>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't do any of that besides preparing for some arm64 work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well it allows an arch to opt-in to batching. But I see your point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you want to handle your patches? Do you want to clean them up and
>>>>>>>> I'll
>>>>>>>> base my stuff on top? Or do you want me to take them and sort it all out?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever you prefer, it was mostly a quick prototype to see if we can
>>>>>>> achieve
>>>>>>> decent performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm about to run it on Altra and M2. But I assume it will show similar
>>>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> OK results in, not looking great, which aligns with my previous experience.
>>>> That
>>>> said, I'm seeing some "BUG: Bad page state in process gmain pfn:12a094" so
>>>> perhaps these results are not valid...
>>>
>>> I didn't see that so far on x86, maybe related to the PFN fixup?
>>
>> All I've done is define PFN_PTE_SHIFT for arm64 on top of your latest patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index b19a8aee684c..9eb0fd693df9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -359,6 +359,8 @@ static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> }
>> #define set_ptes set_ptes
>> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT PAGE_SHIFT
>> +
>> /*
>> * Huge pte definitions.
>> */
>>
>>
>> As an aside, I think there is a bug in arm64's set_ptes() for PA > 48-bit
>> case. But that won't affect this.
>>
>>
>> With VM_DEBUG on, this is the first warning I see during boot:
>>
>>
>> [ 0.278110] page:00000000c7ced4e8 refcount:12 mapcount:0
>> mapping:00000000b2f9739b index:0x1a8 pfn:0x1bff30
>> [ 0.278742] head:00000000c7ced4e8 order:2 entire_mapcount:0
>> nr_pages_mapped:2 pincount:0
>
> ^ Ah, you are running with mTHP. Let me play with that.
Err... Its in mm-unstable, but I'm not enabling any sizes. It should only be set
up for PMD-sized THP.
I am using XFS though, so I imagine its a file folio.
I've rebased your rmap cleanup and fork batching to the version of mm-unstable
that I was doing all my other testing with so I could compare numbers. But its
not very old (perhaps a week). All the patches applied without any conflict.
>
> The warning would indicate that nr is too large (or something else is messed up).
>
