On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 9:38 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:16:16AM -0700, Yang Shi wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 8:39 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I know this is very last minute, but I was hoping that it might be possible to > > > squeeze in a session to discuss the following? > > I'm not going to be at LSFMM, so I'd prefer this sort of thing get > discussed on the dev lists... > > > > Summary/Background: > > > > > > On arm64, physically contiguous and naturally aligned regions can take advantage > > > of contpte mappings (e.g. 64 KB) to reduce iTLB pressure. However, for file > > > regions containing text, current readahead behaviour often yields small, > > > misaligned folios, preventing this optimization. This proposal introduces a > > > special-case path for executable mappings, performing synchronous reads of an > > > architecture-chosen size into large folios (64 KB on arm64). Early performance > > > tests on real-world workloads (e.g. nginx, redis, kernel compilation) show ~2-9% > > > gains. > > > > AFAIK, MySQL is quite sensitive to iTLB pressure. It should be worth > > adding to the tests. > > > > > > > > I’ve previously posted attempts to enable this performance improvement ([1], > > > [2]), but there were objections and conversation fizzled out. Now that I have > > > more compelling performance data, I’m hoping there is now stronger > > > justification, and we can find a path forwards. > > > > > > What I’d Like to Cover: > > > > > > - Describe how text memory should ideally be mapped and why it benefits > > > performance. > > I think the main people involved already understand this... > > > > - Brief review of performance data. > > You don't need to convince me - there's 3 decades of evidence > proving that larger, fewer page table mappings for executables > results in better performance. > > > > - Discuss options for the best way to encourage text into large folios: > > > - Let the architecture request a preferred size > > > - Extend VMA attributes to include preferred THP size hint > > > - Provide a sysfs knob > > > - Plug into the “mapping min folio order” infrastructure > > > - Other approaches? > > Implement generic large folio/sequential PTE mapping optimisations > for each platform, then control it by letting the filesystem decide > what the desired mapping order and alignment should be for any given > inode mapping tree. > > > Did you try LBS? You can have 64K block size with LBS, it should > > create large folios for page cache so text should get large folios > > automatically (IIRC arm64 linker script has 64K alignment by default). > > We really don't want people using 64kB block size filesystems for > root filesystems - there are plenty of downsides to using huge block > sizes for filesytems that generally hold many tiny files. Agreed. Large folios will be compatible with existing file systems and applications, which don’t always require userspace to adopt them. > > However, I agree with the general principle that the fs should be > directing the inode mapping tree folio order behaviour. i.e. the > filesystem already sets both the floor and the desired behaviour for > folio instantiation for any given inode mapping tree. > > It also needs to be able to instantiate large folios -before- the > executable is mapped into VMAs via mmap() because files can be read > into cache before they are run (e.g. boot time readahead hacks). > i.e. a mmap() time directive is too late to apply to the inode > mapping tree to guarantee optimal layout for PTE optimisation. It > also may not be possible to apply mmap() time directives due to > other filesystem constraints, so mmap() time directives may well end > up being unpredictable and unreliable.... > ELF loading and the linker may lead to readaheading a small portion of the code text before mmap(). However, once the executable files are large, the minor loss of large folios due to limited read-ahead of the text may not be substantial enough to justify consideration. But "boot time readahead hacks" seem like something that can read ahead significantly. Unless we can modify these "boot time readahead hacks" to use mmap() with EXEC mapping, it seems we would need something at the sys_read() to apply the preferred size. > There's also an obvious filesystem level trigger for enabling this > behaviour in a generic manner. e.g. The filesystem can look at the > X perm bits on the inode at instantiation time and if they are set, > set a "desired order" value+flag on the mapping at inode cache > instantiation in addition to "min order". > Not sure what proportion of an executable file is the text section. If it's less than 30% or 50%, it seems we might be allocating "preferred size" large folios to many other sections that may not benefit from them? Also, a Bash shell script with executable permissions might get a preferred large folio size. This seems weird? By the way, are .so files executable files, even though they may contain a lot of code? As I check my filesystems, it seems not: /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu # ls -l libz.so.1.2.13 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133280 Jan 11 2023 libz.so.1.2.13 > If a desired order is configured, the page cache read code can then > pass a FGP_TRY_ORDER flag with the fgp_order set to the desired > value to folio allocation. If that can't be allocated then it can > fall back to single page folios instead of failing. > > At this point, we will always optimistically try to allocate larger > folios for executables on all architectures. Architectures that > can optimise sequential PTE mappings can then simply add generic > support for large folio optimisation, and more efficient executable > mappings simply fall out of the generic support for efficient > mapping of large folios and filesystems preferring large folios for > executable inode mappings.... I feel this falls more within the scope of architecture and memory management rather than the filesystem. If possible, we should try to avoid modifying the filesystem code? > > -Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks Barry
