Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:35:14 +0800
From:   Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Mina Almasry <almasrymina@google.com>,
        Jue Wang <juew@google.com>,
        Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@nutanix.com>,
        "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/26] hugetlb: make huge_pte_lockptr take an
 explicit shift argument.
Message-ID: <Yr1uUmfA/iWO740v@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
References: <20220624173656.2033256-1-jthoughton@google.com>
 <20220624173656.2033256-5-jthoughton@google.com>
 <YroYaWVvNZJvtqsH@monkey>
 <Yrvsn66c+UI8ZQlO@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
 <Yry+PPHSat2uN+aG@monkey>
 <CADrL8HX9OkuWzpODBzHx-6-7_SLJ1YCCe5HxXdPa4ibqeQZu3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <YrzRLVQaYtYAYsEa@monkey>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YrzRLVQaYtYAYsEa@monkey>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 03:24:45PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 06/29/22 14:39, James Houghton wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 2:04 PM Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/29/22 14:09, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 01:51:53PM -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > > > On 06/24/22 17:36, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > > > This is needed to handle PTL locking with high-granularity mapping. We
> > > > > > won't always be using the PMD-level PTL even if we're using the 2M
> > > > > > hugepage hstate. It's possible that we're dealing with 4K PTEs, in which
> > > > > > case, we need to lock the PTL for the 4K PTE.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not really sure why this would be required.
> > > > > Why not use the PMD level lock for 4K PTEs?  Seems that would scale better
> > > > > with less contention than using the more coarse mm lock.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your words make me thing of another question unrelated to this patch.
> > > > We __know__ that arm64 supports continues PTE HugeTLB. huge_pte_lockptr()
> > > > did not consider this case, in this case, those HugeTLB pages are contended
> > > > with mm lock. Seems we should optimize this case. Something like:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > index 0d790fa3f297..68a1e071bfc0 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> > > > @@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ static inline gfp_t htlb_modify_alloc_mask(struct hstate *h, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > >  static inline spinlock_t *huge_pte_lockptr(struct hstate *h,
> > > >                                            struct mm_struct *mm, pte_t *pte)
> > > >  {
> > > > -       if (huge_page_size(h) == PMD_SIZE)
> > > > +       if (huge_page_size(h) <= PMD_SIZE)
> > > >                 return pmd_lockptr(mm, (pmd_t *) pte);
> > > >         VM_BUG_ON(huge_page_size(h) == PAGE_SIZE);
> > > >         return &mm->page_table_lock;
> > > >
> > > > I did not check if elsewhere needs to be changed as well. Just a primary
> > > > thought.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if this works. If hugetlb_pte_size(hpte) is PAGE_SIZE,
> > then `hpte.ptep` will be a pte_t, not a pmd_t -- I assume that breaks
> > things. So I think, when doing a HugeTLB PT walk down to PAGE_SIZE, we
> > need to separately keep track of the location of the PMD so that we
> > can use it to get the PMD lock.
> 
> I assume Muchun was talking about changing this in current code (before
> your changes) where huge_page_size(h) can not be PAGE_SIZE.
>

Yes, that's what I meant.

Thanks.