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;
Message-ID: <0ec6c371-c183-a8aa-614b-a23abbf3b233@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:16:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
References: <20230809083256.699513-1-david@redhat.com> <ZNQD4pxo8svpGmvX@x1n>
 <e5e29217-11d3-a84b-9e29-44acc72222f3@redhat.com>
 <155bd03e-b75c-4d2d-a89d-a12271ada71b@arm.com> <ZNUbNDiciFefJngZ@x1n>
 <db3c4d94-a0a9-6703-6fe0-e1b8851e531f@redhat.com> <ZNVPJ9xxd2oarR3I@x1n>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1] mm: add a total mapcount for large folios
In-Reply-To: <ZNVPJ9xxd2oarR3I@x1n>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

>> Okay, so your speculation right now is:
>>
>> 1) The change in cacheline might be problematic.
>>
>> 2) The additional atomic operation might be problematic.
>>
>>> then measure the split (by e.g. mprotect() at offset 1M on a 4K?) time it
>>> takes before/after this patch.
>>
>> I can certainly try getting some numbers on that. If you're aware of other
>> micro-benchmarks that would likely notice slower pte-mapping of THPs, please
>> let me know.
> 
> Thanks.

If I effectively only measure the real PTE->PMD remapping (only measure 
the for loop that mprotects() one 4k page inside each of 512 THPs ) 
without any of the mmap+populate+munmap, I can certainly measure a real 
difference.

I briefly looked at some perf data across the overall benchmark runtime.

For page_remove_rmap(), the new atomic_dec() doesn't seem to be 
significant. Data indicates that it's significantly less relevant than a 
later atomic_add_negative().

For page_add_anon_rmap(), it's a bit fuzzy. Definitely, the 
atomic_inc_return_relaxed(mapped) seems to stick out, but I cannot rule 
out that the atomic_add() also plays a role.


The PTE->PMD remapping effectively does (__split_huge_pmd_locked())

for (i = 0, addr = haddr; i < HPAGE_PMD_NR; i++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
	...
	page_add_anon_rmap(page + i, vma, addr, RMAP_NONE);
	...
}
...
page_remove_rmap(page, vma, true);


Inside that loop we're repeatedly accessing the total_mapcount and 
_nr_pages_mapped. So my best guess would have been that both are already 
hot in the cache.

RMAP batching certainly sounds like a good idea for 
__split_huge_pmd_locked(), independent of this patch.


What would probably also interesting is observing happens when we unmap 
a single PTE of a THP and we cannot batch, to see if the 
page_remove_rmap() matters in the bigger scale.

I'll do some more digging tomorrow to clarify some details. Running some 
kernel compile tests with thp=always at least didn't reveal any 
surprises so far.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb