On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:37 AM Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
thanks. I understand. i feel fixing up nr earlier can make the code
more readable.
case RMAP_LEVEL_PTE:
...
+ if (!atomic_read(mapped))
+ nr = 0;
break;
as I have been struggling for a long time to understand the code, especially
the one with many conditions in the “if” :-)
+ 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);
}
>
> >
> > 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
