On 25 Apr 2024, at 22:23, Barry Song wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 9:55 AM Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 25 Apr 2024, at 21:45, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:11 AM Zi Yan <zi.yan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split list
>>>> if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. But it is possible that
>>>> the folio is fully unmapped and adding it to deferred split list is
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>>
>>>> For PMD-mapped THPs, that was not really an issue, because removing the
>>>> last PMD mapping in the absence of PTE mappings would not have added the
>>>> folio to the deferred split queue.
>>>>
>>>> However, for PTE-mapped THPs, which are now more prominent due to mTHP,
>>>> they are always added to the deferred split queue. One side effect
>>>> is that the THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE stat for a PTE-mapped folio can be
>>>> unintentionally increased, making it look like there are many partially
>>>> mapped folios -- although the whole folio is fully unmapped stepwise.
>>>>
>>>> Core-mm now tries batch-unmapping consecutive PTEs of PTE-mapped THPs
>>>> where possible starting from commit b06dc281aa99 ("mm/rmap: introduce
>>>> folio_remove_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()"). When it happens, a whole PTE-mapped
>>>> folio is unmapped in one go and can avoid being added to deferred split
>>>> list, reducing the THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE noise. But there will still be
>>>> noise when we cannot batch-unmap a complete PTE-mapped folio in one go
>>>> -- or where this type of batching is not implemented yet, e.g., migration.
>>>>
>>>> To avoid the unnecessary addition, folio->_nr_pages_mapped is checked
>>>> to tell if the whole folio is unmapped. If the folio is already on
>>>> deferred split list, it will be skipped, too.
>>>>
>>>> Note: commit 98046944a159 ("mm: huge_memory: add the missing
>>>> folio_test_pmd_mappable() for THP split statistics") tried to exclude
>>>> mTHP deferred split stats from THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE, but it does not
>>>> fix the above issue. A fully unmapped PTE-mapped order-9 THP was still
>>>> added to deferred split list and counted as THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE,
>>>> since nr is 512 (non zero), level is RMAP_LEVEL_PTE, and inside
>>>> deferred_split_folio() the order-9 folio is folio_test_pmd_mappable().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/rmap.c | 8 +++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> index a7913a454028..220ad8a83589 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> @@ -1553,9 +1553,11 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
>>>> * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
>>>> * is still mapped.
>>>> */
>>>> - if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>> - if (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmapped)
>>>> - deferred_split_folio(folio);
>>>> + if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio) &&
>>>> + list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list) &&
>>>> + ((level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE && atomic_read(mapped)) ||
>>>> + (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PMD && nr < nr_pmdmapped)))
>>>> + deferred_split_folio(folio);
>>>
>>> Hi Zi Yan,
>>> in case a mTHP is mapped by two processed (forked but not CoW yet), if we
>>> unmap the whole folio by pte level in one process only, are we still adding this
>>> folio into deferred list?
>>
>> No. Because the mTHP is still fully mapped by the other process. In terms of code,
>> nr will be 0 in that case and this if condition is skipped. nr is only increased
>> from 0 when one of the subpages in the mTHP has no mapping, namely page->_mapcount
>> becomes negative and last is true in the case RMAP_LEVEL_PTE.
>
> Ok. i see, so "last" won't be true?
>
> case RMAP_LEVEL_PTE:
> do {
> last = atomic_add_negative(-1, &page->_mapcount);
> if (last && folio_test_large(folio)) {
> last = atomic_dec_return_relaxed(mapped);
> last = (last < ENTIRELY_MAPPED);
> }
>
> if (last)
> nr++;
> } while (page++, --nr_pages > 0);
> break;
Right, because for every subpage its corresponding
last = atomic_add_negative(-1, &page->_mapcount); is not true after the unmapping.
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
