On 13/03/2024 07:19, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:01 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Rework madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to avoid splitting any large
>> folio that is fully and contiguously mapped in the pageout/cold vm
>> range. This change means that large folios will be maintained all the
>> way to swap storage. This both improves performance during swap-out, by
>> eliding the cost of splitting the folio, and sets us up nicely for
>> maintaining the large folio when it is swapped back in (to be covered in
>> a separate series).
>>
>> Folios that are not fully mapped in the target range are still split,
>> but note that behavior is changed so that if the split fails for any
>> reason (folio locked, shared, etc) we now leave it as is and move to the
>> next pte in the range and continue work on the proceeding folios.
>> Previously any failure of this sort would cause the entire operation to
>> give up and no folios mapped at higher addresses were paged out or made
>> cold. Given large folios are becoming more common, this old behavior
>> would have likely lead to wasted opportunities.
>>
>> While we are at it, change the code that clears young from the ptes to
>> use ptep_test_and_clear_young(), which is more efficent than
>> get_and_clear/modify/set, especially for contpte mappings on arm64,
>> where the old approach would require unfolding/refolding and the new
>> approach can be done in place.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>
> This looks so much better than our initial RFC.
> Thank you for your excellent work!
Thanks - its a team effort - I had your PoC and David's previous batching work
to use as a template.
>
>> ---
>> mm/madvise.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>> index 547dcd1f7a39..56c7ba7bd558 100644
>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>> @@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>> LIST_HEAD(folio_list);
>> bool pageout_anon_only_filter;
>> unsigned int batch_count = 0;
>> + int nr;
>>
>> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>> return -EINTR;
>> @@ -423,7 +424,8 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>> return 0;
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm);
>> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>> - for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>> + for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE) {
>> + nr = 1;
>> ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>>
>> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
>> @@ -447,55 +449,66 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>> continue;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Creating a THP page is expensive so split it only if we
>> - * are sure it's worth. Split it if we are only owner.
>> + * If we encounter a large folio, only split it if it is not
>> + * fully mapped within the range we are operating on. Otherwise
>> + * leave it as is so that it can be swapped out whole. If we
>> + * fail to split a folio, leave it in place and advance to the
>> + * next pte in the range.
>> */
>> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>> - int err;
>> -
>> - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>> - break;
>> - if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>> - break;
>> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>> - break;
>> - folio_get(folio);
>> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>> - pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>> - start_pte = NULL;
>> - 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();
>> - pte--;
>> - addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
>> - continue;
>> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY |
>> + FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>> + int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
>> +
>> + nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
>> + fpb_flags, NULL);
>
> I wonder if we have a quick way to avoid folio_pte_batch() if users
> are doing madvise() on a portion of a large folio.
Good idea. Something like this?:
if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio)
nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
fpb_flags, NULL);
If we are not mapping the first page of the folio, then it can't be a full
mapping, so no need to call folio_pte_batch(). Just split it.
>
>> +
>> + if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>> + continue;
>> + if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>> + continue;
>> + if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>> + continue;
>> + folio_get(folio);
>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>> + pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>> + start_pte = NULL;
>> + err = split_folio(folio);
>> + folio_unlock(folio);
>> + folio_put(folio);
>> + if (err)
>> + continue;
>> + start_pte = pte =
>> + pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>> + if (!start_pte)
>> + break;
>> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>> + nr = 0;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> * Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio and
>> - * non-LRU folio.
>> + * non-LRU folio. If we have a large folio at this point, we
>> + * know it is fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as its
>> + * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
>> */
>> - if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>> + if (!folio_test_lru(folio) ||
>> + folio_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio))
>> continue;
>
> This looks so perfect and is exactly what I wanted to achieve.
>
>>
>> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>> continue;
>>
>> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>> -
>> - if (!pageout && pte_young(ptent)) {
>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
>> - tlb->fullmm);
>> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
>> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>> + if (!pageout) {
>> + for (; nr != 0; nr--, pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>> + if (ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, addr, pte))
>> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>> + }
>
> This looks so smart. if it is not pageout, we have increased pte
> and addr here; so nr is 0 and we don't need to increase again in
> for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE)
>
> otherwise, nr won't be 0. so we will increase addr and
> pte by nr.
Indeed. I'm hoping that Lance is able to follow a similar pattern for
madvise_free_pte_range().
>
>
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>
> Overall, LGTM,
>
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
