On 25 Apr 2024, at 23:28, Barry Song wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 10:50 AM Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.2
>
> if a mTHP is mapped only by one process, and we unmap it entirely, we will
> get nr > 0, then we are executing adding it into deferred_list? so it seems
> atomic_read(mapped) is preventing this case from adding deferred_list?
Yes, that is what this patch is doing. When a mTHP is mapped by one process
and later unmapped fully, there is no need to add it to deferred_list.
The mTHP will be freed right afterwards.
>
> I wonder if it is possible to fixup nr to 0 from the first place?
> for example
> /* we are doing an entire unmapping */
> if (page==&folio->page && nr_pages == folio_nr_pages(folio))
> ...
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best Regards,
>> Yan, Zi
--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
