On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:24 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21/03/2024 14:55, Lance Yang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:38 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>> - 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);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> IIRC, some of the architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB with set_pte_at and
> >>>>>>> tlb_remove_tlb_entry. So, didn't we consider remapping the PTE with old after
> >>>>>>> pte clearing?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry Lance, I don't understand this question, can you rephrase? Are you saying
> >>>>>> there is a good reason to do the original clear-mkold-set for some arches?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IIRC, some of the architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB with
> >>>>> ptep_test_and_clear_young()
> >>>>> and tlb_remove_tlb_entry().
> >>
> >> Afraid I'm still struggling with this comment. Do you mean to say that powerpc
> >> invalidates the TLB entry as part of the call to ptep_test_and_clear_young()? So
> >> tlb_remove_tlb_entry() would be redundant here, and likely cause performance
> >> degradation on that architecture?
> >
> > I just thought that using ptep_test_and_clear_young() instead of
> > ptep_get_and_clear_full() + pte_mkold() might not be correct.
> > However, it's most likely that I was mistaken :(
>
> OK, I'm pretty confident that my usage is correct.
>
> >
> > I also have a question. Why aren't we using ptep_test_and_clear_young() in
> > madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(), but instead
> > ptep_get_and_clear_full() + pte_mkold() as we did previously.
> >
> > /*
> > * Some of architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB
> > * with set_pte_at and tlb_remove_tlb_entry so for
> > * the portability, remap the pte with old|clean
> > * after pte clearing.
> > */
>
> Ahh, I see; this is a comment from madvise_free_pte_range() I don't quite
> understand that comment. I suspect it might be out of date, or saying that doing
> set_pte_at(pte_mkold(ptep_get(ptent))) is not correct because it is not atomic
> and the HW could set the dirty bit between the get and the set. Doing the atomic
> ptep_get_and_clear_full() means you go via a pte_none() state, so if the TLB is
> racing it will see the entry isn't valid and fault.
Thanks for your analysis and explanations!
>
> Note that madvise_free_pte_range() is trying to clear both the access and dirty
> bits, whereas madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() is only trying to clear the
> access bit. There is a special helper to clear the access bit atomically -
> ptep_test_and_clear_young() - but there is no helper to clear the access *and*
> dirty bit, I don't believe. There is ptep_set_access_flags(), but that sets
> flags to a "more permissive setting" (i.e. allows setting the flags, not
> clearing them). Perhaps this constraint can be relaxed given we will follow up
> with an explicit TLBI - it would require auditing all the implementations.
Thanks for bringing this! I'll take a closer look at it.
Thanks again for your time!
Lance
>
> >
> > According to this comment from madvise_free_pte_range. IIUC, we need to
> > call ptep_get_and_clear_full() to clear the PTE, and then remap the
> > PTE with old|clean.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lance
> >
> >>
> >> IMHO, ptep_test_and_clear_young() really shouldn't be invalidating the TLB
> >> entry, that's what ptep_clear_flush_young() is for.
> >>
> >> But I do see that for some cases of the 32-bit ppc, there appears to be a flush:
> >>
> >> #define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_TEST_AND_CLEAR_YOUNG
> >> static inline int __ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >> unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
> >> {
> >> unsigned long old;
> >> old = pte_update(mm, addr, ptep, _PAGE_ACCESSED, 0, 0);
> >> if (old & _PAGE_HASHPTE)
> >> flush_hash_entry(mm, ptep, addr); <<<<<<<<
> >>
> >> return (old & _PAGE_ACCESSED) != 0;
> >> }
> >> #define ptep_test_and_clear_young(__vma, __addr, __ptep) \
> >> __ptep_test_and_clear_young((__vma)->vm_mm, __addr, __ptep)
> >>
> >> Is that what you are describing? Does any anyone know why flush_hash_entry() is
> >> called? I'd say that's a bug in ppc and not a reason not to use
> >> ptep_test_and_clear_young() in the common code!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ryan
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Err, I assumed tlb_remove_tlb_entry() meant "invalidate the TLB entry for this
> >>>> address please" - albeit its deferred and batched. I'll look into this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my new patch[1], I use refresh_full_ptes() and
> >>>>> tlb_remove_tlb_entries() to batch-update the
> >>>>> access and dirty bits.
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to avoid the per-pte clear-modify-set approach, because this doesn't
> >>>> perform well on arm64 when using contpte mappings; it will cause the contpe
> >>>> mapping to be unfolded by the first clear that touches the contpte block, then
> >>>> refolded by the last set to touch the block. That's expensive.
> >>>> ptep_test_and_clear_young() doesn't suffer that problem.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for explaining. I got it.
> >>>
> >>> I think that other architectures will benefit from the per-pte clear-modify-set
> >>> approach. IMO, refresh_full_ptes() can be overridden by arm64.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Lance
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240316102952.39233-1-ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Lance
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Lance
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
