Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Message-ID: <0c446883-7f01-406f-bddd-8e78b989d644@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2023 11:46:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 06/12] mm/gup: Drop folio_fast_pin_allowed() in hugepd
 processing
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
References: <20231116012908.392077-7-peterx@redhat.com>
 <ZVsYMMJpmFV2T/Zc@infradead.org> <ZVzT5_3Zn-Y-6xth@x1n>
 <ZV21GCbG48nTLDzn@infradead.org> <ZV90JcnQ1RGud/0R@casper.infradead.org>
 <ZV-KQ0e0y9BTsHGv@x1n> <d2313c1d-1e50-49b7-bed7-840431af799a@arm.com>
 <ZV-sJsdFfXiCkylv@x1n> <510adc26-9aed-4745-8807-dba071fadbbe@arm.com>
 <ZWDKV0XNjplc_vUP@x1n> <ZWj_EgljG3NwS5r1@x1n>
 <283da12c-14f1-4255-b3c4-ab933f3373c4@csgroup.eu>
 <01aad92f-b1e0-4f31-b905-8b1c2012ebab@arm.com>
 <97c21205-f3e6-4634-82e6-c7bbd81d1835@csgroup.eu>
From:   Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <97c21205-f3e6-4634-82e6-c7bbd81d1835@csgroup.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 04/12/2023 11:25, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 04/12/2023 à 12:11, Ryan Roberts a écrit :
>> On 03/12/2023 13:33, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 30/11/2023 à 22:30, Peter Xu a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:07:51AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 09:06:01AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> I don't have any micro-benchmarks for GUP though, if that's your question. Is
>>>>>> there an easy-to-use test I can run to get some numbers? I'd be happy to try it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Ryan.  Then nothing is needed to be tested if gup is not yet touched
>>>>> from your side, afaict.  I'll see whether I can provide some rough numbers
>>>>> instead in the next post (I'll probably only be able to test it in a VM,
>>>>> though, but hopefully that should still reflect mostly the truth).
>>>>
>>>> An update: I finished a round of 64K cont_pte test, in the slow gup micro
>>>> benchmark I see ~15% perf degrade with this patchset applied on a VM on top
>>>> of Apple M1.
>>>>
>>>> Frankly that's even less than I expected, considering not only how slow gup
>>>> THP used to be, but also on the fact that that's a tight loop over slow
>>>> gup, which in normal cases shouldn't happen: "present" ptes normally goes
>>>> to fast-gup, while !present goes into a fault following it.  I assume
>>>> that's why nobody cared slow gup for THP before.  I think adding cont_pte
>>>> support shouldn't be very hard, but that will include making cont_pte idea
>>>> global just for arm64 and riscv Svnapot.
>>>
>>> Is there any documentation on what cont_pte is ? I have always wondered
>>> if it could also fit powerpc 8xx need ?
>>
>> pte_cont() (and pte_mkcont() and pte_mknoncont()) test and manipulte the
>> "contiguous bit" in the arm64 PTE entries. Those helpers are arm64-specific
>> (AFAIK). The contiguous bit is a hint to the HW to tell it that a block of PTEs
>> are mapping a physically contiguous and naturally aligned piece of memory. The
>> HW can use this to coalesce entries in the TLB. When using 4K base pages, the
>> contpte size is 64K (16 PTEs). For 16K base pages, its 2M (128 PTEs) and for 64K
>> base pages, its 2M (32 PTEs).
>>
>>>
>>> On powerpc, for 16k pages, we have to define 4 consecutive PTEs. All 4
>>> PTE are flagged with the SPS bit telling it's a 16k pages, but for TLB
>>> misses the HW needs one entrie for each 4k fragment.
>>
>>  From that description, it sounds like the SPS bit might be similar to arm64
>> contiguous bit? Although sounds like you are currently using it in a slightly
>> different way - telling kernel that the base page is 16K but mapping each 16K
>> page with 4x 4K entries (plus the SPS bit set)?
> 
> Yes it's both.
> 
> When the base page is 16k, there are 4x 4k entries (with SPS bit set) in 
> the page table, and pte_t is a table of 4 'unsigned long'
> 
> When the base page is 4k, there is a 16k hugepage size, which is the 
> same 4x 4k entries with SPS bit set.
> 
> So it looks similar to the contiguous bit.
> 
> 
> And by extension, the same principle is used for 512k hugepages, the bit 
> _PAGE_HUGE is copied by the TLB miss handler into the lower bit of PS, 
> PS being as follows:
> - 00 Small (4 Kbyte or 16 Kbyte)
> - 01 512 Kbyte
> - 10 Reserved
> - 11 8 Mbyte
> 
> So as PMD size is 4M, 512k pages are 128 identical consecutive entries 
> in the page table.
> 
> I which I could have THP with 16k or 512k pages.

Then you have come to the right place! :)

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20231204102027.57185-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/


> 
> Christophe