On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:08 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13/03/2024 10:37, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:36 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/03/2024 09:16, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:03 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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)
> >>>
> >>> what about
> >>>
> >>> "If (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio) && max_nr >= nr_pages)"
> >>>
> >>> just to account for cases where the user's end address falls within
> >>> the middle of a large folio?
> >>
> >> yes, even better. I'll add this for the next version.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> BTW, another minor issue is here:
> >>>
> >>> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
> >>> batch_count = 0;
> >>> if (need_resched()) {
> >>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
> >>> pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> >>> cond_resched();
> >>> goto restart;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> We are increasing 1 for nr ptes, thus, we are holding PTL longer
> >>> than small folios case? we used to increase 1 for each PTE.
> >>> Does it matter?
> >>
> >> I thought about that, but the vast majority of the work is per-folio, not
> >> per-pte. So I concluded it would be best to continue to increment per-folio.
> >
> > Okay. The original patch commit b2f557a21bc8 ("mm/madvise: add
> > cond_resched() in madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range()")
> > primarily addressed the real-time wake-up latency issue. MADV_PAGEOUT
> > and MADV_COLD are much less critical compared
> > to other scenarios where operations like do_anon_page or do_swap_page
> > necessarily need PTL to progress. Therefore, adopting
> > an approach that relatively aggressively releases the PTL seems to
> > neither harm MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD nor disadvantage
> > others.
> >
> > We are slightly increasing the duration of holding the PTL due to the
> > iteration of folio_pte_batch() potentially taking longer than
> > the case of small folios, which do not require it.
>
> If we can't scan all the PTEs in a page table without dropping the PTL
> intermittently we have bigger problems. This all works perfectly fine in all the
> other PTE iterators; see zap_pte_range() for example.
I've no doubt about folio_pte_batch(). was just talking about the
original rt issue
it might affect.
>
> > However, compared
> > to operations like folio_isolate_lru() and folio_deactivate(),
> > this increase seems negligible. Recently, we have actually removed
> > ptep_test_and_clear_young() for MADV_PAGEOUT,
> > which should also benefit real-time scenarios. Nonetheless, there is a
> > small risk with large folios, such as 1 MiB mTHP, where
> > we may need to loop 256 times in folio_pte_batch().
>
> As I understand it, RT and THP are mutually exclusive. RT can't handle the extra
> latencies THPs can cause in allocation path, etc. So I don't think you will see
> a problem here.
I was actually taking a different approach on the phones as obviously
we have some
UX(user-experience)/UI/audio related tasks which cannot tolerate
allocation latency. with
a TAO-similar optimization(we did it by ext_migratetype for some pageblocks), we
actually don't push buddy to do compaction or reclamation for forming
64KiB folio.
We immediately fallback to small folios if a zero-latency 64KiB
allocation can't be
obtained from some kinds of pools - ext_migratetype pageblocks.
>
> >
> > I would vote for increasing 'nr' or maybe max(log2(nr), 1) rather than
> > 1 for two reasons:
> >
> > 1. We are not making MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD worse; in fact, we are
> > improving them by reducing the time taken to put the same
> > number of pages into the reclaim list.
> >
> > 2. MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD scenarios are not urgent compared to others that
> > genuinely require the PTL to progress. Moreover,
> > the majority of time spent on PAGEOUT is actually reclaim_pages().
>
> I understand your logic. But I'd rather optimize for fewer lock acquisitions for
> the !RT+THP case, since RT+THP is not supported.
Fair enough. I agree we can postpone this until RT and THP become an
available option.
For now, keeping this patch simpler seems to be better.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>> 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!
> >>>>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Barry
>
