Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Message-ID: <537ac106-e4f6-4845-aa09-29b775269562@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 14:39:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/39] mm/rmap: interface overhaul
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
References: <20231204142146.91437-1-david@redhat.com>
 <993ea322-8cdb-4ab1-84d3-0a1cb40049c9@arm.com>
 <067753e4-faf0-4bc0-9703-ec97b7de705e@redhat.com>
 <1ba5dd86-a201-4243-bab0-349395468236@arm.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ
 dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL
 QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp
 XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK
 Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9
 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt
 WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc
 UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv
 jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb
 B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk
 ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW
 AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q
 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp
 rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf
 wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4
 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l
 pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd
 KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE
 BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs
 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF
 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9
 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz
 Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb
 T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A
 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk
 CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G
 NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75
 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx
 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS
 lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv
 AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa
 N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3
 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB
 boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq
 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f
 XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ
 a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq
 Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6
 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8
 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E
 th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr
 jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt
 WNyWQQ==
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <1ba5dd86-a201-4243-bab0-349395468236@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 05.12.23 14:31, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 05/12/2023 09:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ryan has series where we would make use of folio_remove_rmap_ptes() [1]
>>>> -- he carries his own batching variant right now -- and
>>>> folio_try_dup_anon_rmap_ptes()/folio_dup_file_rmap_ptes() [2].
>>>
>>> Note that the contpte series at [2] has a new patch in v3 (patch 2), which could
>>> benefit from folio_remove_rmap_ptes() or equivalent. My plan was to revive [1]
>>> on top of [2] once it is merged.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is some overlap with both series (and some other work, like
>>>> multi-size THP [3]), so that will need some coordination, and likely a
>>>> stepwise inclusion.
>>>
>>> Selfishly, I'd really like to get my stuff merged as soon as there is no
>>> technical reason not to. I'd prefer not to add this as a dependency if we can
>>> help it.
>>
>> It's easy to rework either series on top of each other. The mTHP series has
>> highest priority,
>> no question, that will go in first.
> 
> Music to my ears! It would be great to either get a reviewed-by or feedback on
> why not, for the key 2 patches in that series (3 & 4) and also your opinion on
> whether we need to wait for compaction to land (see cover letter). It would be
> great to get this into linux-next ASAP IMHO.

On it :)

> 
>>
>> Regarding the contpte, I think it needs more work. Especially, as raised, to not
>> degrade
>> order-0 performance. Maybe we won't make the next merge window (and you already
>> predicated
>> that in some cover letter :P ). Let's see.
> 
> Yeah that's ok. I'll do the work to fix the order-0 perf. And also do the same
> for patch 2 in that series - would also be really helpful if you had a chance to
> look at patch 2 - its new for v3.

I only skimmed over it, but it seems to go into the direction we'll 
need. Keeping order-0 performance unharmed should have highest priority. 
Hopefully my microbenchmarks are helpful.

> 
>>
>> But again, the conflicts are all trivial, so I'll happily rebase on top of
>> whatever is
>> in mm-unstable. Or move the relevant rework to the front so you can just carry
>> them/base on them. (the batched variants for dup do make the contpte code much
>> easier)
> 
> So perhaps we should aim for mTHP, then this, then contpte last, benefiting from
> the batching.

Yeah. And again, I don't care too much if I have to rebase on top of 
your work if this here takes longer. It's all a fairly trivial conversion.

>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> New (extended) hugetlb interface that operate on entire folio:
>>>>    * hugetlb_add_new_anon_rmap() -> Already existed
>>>>    * hugetlb_add_anon_rmap() -> Already existed
>>>>    * hugetlb_try_dup_anon_rmap()
>>>>    * hugetlb_try_share_anon_rmap()
>>>>    * hugetlb_add_file_rmap()
>>>>    * hugetlb_remove_rmap()
>>>>
>>>> New "ordinary" interface for small folios / THP::
>>>>    * folio_add_new_anon_rmap() -> Already existed
>>>>    * folio_add_anon_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>>    * folio_try_dup_anon_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>>    * folio_try_share_anon_rmap_[pte|pmd]()
>>>>    * folio_add_file_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>>    * folio_dup_file_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>>    * folio_remove_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if there are official guidelines, but personally if we are
>>> reworking the API, I'd take the opportunity to move "rmap" to the front of the
>>> name, rather than having it burried in the middle as it is for some of these:
>>>
>>> rmap_hugetlb_*()
>>>
>>> rmap_folio_*()
>>
>> No strong opinion. But we might want slightly different names then. For example,
>> it's "bio_add_folio" and not "bio_folio_add":
>>
>>
>> rmap_add_new_anon_hugetlb()
>> rmap_add_anon_hugetlb()
>> ...
>> rmap_remove_hugetlb()
>>
>>
>> rmap_add_new_anon_folio()
>> rmap_add_anon_folio_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>> ...
>> rmap_dup_file_folio_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>> rmap_remove_folio_[pte|ptes|pmd]()
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Having now reviewed your series, I have a less strong opinion, perhaps it's
> actually best with your original names; "folio" is actually the subject after
> all; it's the thing being operated on.
> 

I think having "folio" in there looks cleaner and more consistent to 
other functions.

I tend to like "rmap_dup_file_folio_[pte|ptes|pmd]()", because then we 
have "file folio" and "anon folio" as one word.

But then I wonder about the hugetlb part. Maybe simply 
"hugetlb_rmap_remove_folio()" etc.

Having the "hugetlb_" prefix at the beginning feels like the right thing 
to do, looking at orher hugetlb special-handlings.

But I'll wait a bit until I go crazy on renaming :)

> 
>>
>>>
>>> I guess reading the patches will tell me, but what's the point of "ptes"? Surely
>>> you're either mapping at pte or pmd level, and the number of pages is determined
>>> by the folio size? (or presumably nr param passed in)
>>
>> It's really (currently) one function to handle 1 vs. multiple PTEs. For example:
>>
>> void folio_remove_rmap_ptes(struct folio *, struct page *, unsigned int nr,
>>          struct vm_area_struct *);
>> #define folio_remove_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma) \
>>      folio_remove_rmap_ptes(folio, page, 1, vma)
>> void folio_remove_rmap_pmd(struct folio *, struct page *,
>>          struct vm_area_struct *);
> 
> Yeah now that I've looked at the series, this makes sense. "ptes" was originally
> making me think of contpte, but I suspect I'll be the only one with that
> association :)

Ah, yes :)

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb