On 20.12.23 13:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
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.
It would also be interesting to know if the compiler on arm64 decides to
do something stupid: like not inline wrprotect_ptes().
Because with an effective unlikely(folio_test_large(folio)) we shouldn't
see that much overhead.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
