On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:07 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 07/03/2024 09:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 07/03/2024 08:10, Barry Song wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 9:00 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hey Barry,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for taking time to review!
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:00 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 7:15 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>>> +static inline bool can_mark_large_folio_lazyfree(unsigned long addr,
> >>>>> + struct folio *folio, pte_t *start_pte)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + int nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>>>> + fpb_t flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + for (int i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++)
> >>>>> + if (page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, i)) != 1)
> >>>>> + return false;
> >>>>
> >>>> we have moved to folio_estimated_sharers though it is not precise, so
> >>>> we don't do
> >>>> this check with lots of loops and depending on the subpage's mapcount.
> >>>
> >>> If we don't check the subpage’s mapcount, and there is a cow folio associated
> >>> with this folio and the cow folio has smaller size than this folio,
> >>> should we still
> >>> mark this folio as lazyfree?
> >>
> >> I agree, this is true. However, we've somehow accepted the fact that
> >> folio_likely_mapped_shared
> >> can result in false negatives or false positives to balance the
> >> overhead. So I really don't know :-)
> >>
> >> Maybe David and Vishal can give some comments here.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> BTW, do we need to rebase our work against David's changes[1]?
> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240227201548.857831-1-david@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >>>
> >>> Yes, we should rebase our work against David’s changes.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + return nr_pages == folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, start_pte,
> >>>>> + ptep_get(start_pte), nr_pages, flags, NULL);
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >>>>> unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @@ -676,11 +690,45 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
> >>>>> int err;
> >>>>> + unsigned long next_addr, align;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1)
> >>>>> - break;
> >>>>> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
> >>>>> - break;
> >>>>> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) != 1 ||
> >>>>> + !folio_trylock(folio))
> >>>>> + goto skip_large_folio;
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think we can skip all the PTEs for nr_pages, as some of them might be
> >>>> pointing to other folios.
> >>>>
> >>>> for example, for a large folio with 16PTEs, you do MADV_DONTNEED(15-16),
> >>>> and write the memory of PTE15 and PTE16, you get page faults, thus PTE15
> >>>> and PTE16 will point to two different small folios. We can only skip when we
> >>>> are sure nr_pages == folio_pte_batch() is sure.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + align = folio_nr_pages(folio) * PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>>> + next_addr = ALIGN_DOWN(addr + align, align);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * If we mark only the subpages as lazyfree, or
> >>>>> + * cannot mark the entire large folio as lazyfree,
> >>>>> + * then just split it.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + if (next_addr > end || next_addr - addr != align ||
> >>>>> + !can_mark_large_folio_lazyfree(addr, folio, pte))
> >>>>> + goto split_large_folio;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * Avoid unnecessary folio splitting if the large
> >>>>> + * folio is entirely within the given range.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + folio_clear_dirty(folio);
> >>>>> + folio_unlock(folio);
> >>>>> + for (; addr != next_addr; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> >>>>> + ptent = ptep_get(pte);
> >>>>> + if (pte_young(ptent) || pte_dirty(ptent)) {
> >>>>> + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(
> >>>>> + mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
> >>>>> + ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
> >>>>> + ptent = pte_mkclean(ptent);
> >>>>> + set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> >>>>> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>
> >>>> Can we do this in batches? for a CONT-PTE mapped large folio, you are unfolding
> >>>> and folding again. It seems quite expensive.
> >
> > I'm not convinced we should be doing this in batches. We want the initial
> > folio_pte_batch() to be as loose as possible regarding permissions so that we
> > reduce our chances of splitting folios to the min. (e.g. ignore SW bits like
> > soft dirty, etc). I think it might be possible that some PTEs are RO and other
> > RW too (e.g. due to cow - although with the current cow impl, probably not. But
> > its fragile to assume that). Anyway, if we do an initial batch that ignores all
> > that then do this bit as a batch, you will end up smeering all the ptes with
> > whatever properties were set on the first pte, which probably isn't right.
> >
> > I've done a similar conversion for madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() as part
> > of my swap-out series v4 (hoping to post imminently, but still working out a
> > latent bug that it triggers). I use ptep_test_and_clear_young() in that, which
> > arm64 can apply per-pte but avoid doing a contpte unfold/fold. I know you have
> > to clear dirty here too, but I think this pattern is preferable.
> >
> > FYI, my swap-out series also halfway-batches madvise_free_pte_range() so that I
> > can batch free_swap_and_cache() for the swap entry case. Ideally the work you
> > are doing here would be rebased on top of that and plug-in to the approach
> > implemented there. (subject to others' views of course).
> >
> > I'll cc you when I post it.
>
> I just sent out the swap-out series v4, as I presed the button I realized I
> forgot to cc you - sorry about that! It's at [1]. Patch 2 and 6 are the
No worries about that. Thanks for letting me know!
I will rebase our work on Patch 2 and 6.
Thanks,
Lance
> interesting ones from this PoV.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240311150058.1122862-1-ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx/
>
>
> >
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your suggestion. I'll do this in batches in v3.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks again for your time!
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Lance
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> + folio_mark_lazyfree(folio);
> >>>>> + goto next_folio;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +split_large_folio:
> >>>>> folio_get(folio);
> >>>>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >>>>> pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> >>>>> @@ -688,13 +736,28 @@ static int madvise_free_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >>>>> err = split_folio(folio);
> >>>>> folio_unlock(folio);
> >>>>> folio_put(folio);
> >>>>> - if (err)
> >>>>> - break;
> >>>>> - start_pte = pte =
> >>>>> - pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> >>>>> - if (!start_pte)
> >>>>> - break;
> >>>>> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * If the large folio is locked or cannot be split,
> >>>>> + * we just skip it.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + if (err) {
> >>>>> +skip_large_folio:
> >>>>> + if (next_addr >= end)
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> + pte += (next_addr - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>>> + addr = next_addr;
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> + if (!start_pte) {
> >>>>> + start_pte = pte = pte_offset_map_lock(
> >>>>> + mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> >>>>> + if (!start_pte)
> >>>>> + break;
> >>>>> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >>>>> + }
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +next_folio:
> >>>>> pte--;
> >>>>> addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
> >>>>> continue;
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> 2.33.1
> >>>>>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Barry
> >
>
