Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-6855-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <3194b8a5-3f72-4d9e-a267-fbdad32ad864@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:58:00 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/16] mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork()
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
 Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
 Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Zenghui Yu
 <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com>,
 Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
 Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, Kefeng Wang
 <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
 Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
 Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231218105100.172635-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20231218105100.172635-3-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <0bef5423-6eea-446b-8854-980e9c23a948@redhat.com>
 <db1be625-33e4-4d07-8500-3f7d3c8f9937@arm.com>
 <be8b5181-be2c-4800-ba53-c65a6c3ed803@redhat.com>
 <dd227e51-c4b2-420b-a92a-65da85ab4018@arm.com>
 <7c0236ad-01f3-437f-8b04-125d69e90dc0@redhat.com>
 <9a58b1a2-2c13-4fa0-8ffa-2b3d9655f1b6@arm.com>
 <28968568-f920-47ac-b6fd-87528ffd8f77@redhat.com>
 <10b0b562-c1c0-4a66-9aeb-a6bff5c218f6@arm.com>
 <8f8023cb-3c31-4ead-a9e6-03a10e9490c6@redhat.com>
 <da16a7e5-76dd-4150-9ade-54b0d227a1e1@arm.com>
 <699cb1db-51eb-460e-9ceb-1ce08ca03050@redhat.com>
 <da29a4c6-61f6-4203-9c82-9ce6e1c32552@arm.com>
 <2a8c5b6c-f5ae-43b2-99aa-6d10e79b76e1@redhat.com>
 <ade26f27-03af-4ad7-ad81-38b482f7572c@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: <ade26f27-03af-4ad7-ad81-38b482f7572c@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 20.12.23 12:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 20/12/2023 11:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.12.23 12:28, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2023 10:56, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 20.12.23 11:41, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>> On 20/12/2023 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.12.23 11:11, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20.12.23 10:51, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/12/2023 09:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 18:42, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/12/2023 17:22, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19.12.23 09:30, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18/12/2023 17:47, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 18.12.23 11:50, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Convert copy_pte_range() to copy a batch of ptes in one go. A given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch is determined by the architecture with the new helper,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pte_batch_remaining(), and maps a physically contiguous block of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all belonging to the same folio. A pte batch is then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write-protected in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one go in the parent using the new helper, ptep_set_wrprotects()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set in one go in the child using the new helper, set_ptes_full().
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The primary motivation for this change is to reduce the number of tlb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintenance operations that the arm64 backend has to perform during
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fork, as it is about to add transparent support for the "contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in its ptes. By write-protecting the parent using the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptep_set_wrprotects() (note the 's' at the end) function, the backend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can avoid having to unfold contig ranges of PTEs, which is expensive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when all ptes in the range are being write-protected. Similarly, by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using set_ptes_full() rather than set_pte_at() to set up ptes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child, the backend does not need to fold a contiguous range once they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are all populated - they can be initially populated as a contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This code is very performance sensitive, and a significant amount of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effort has been put into not regressing performance for the order-0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> folio case. By default, pte_batch_remaining() is compile constant 1,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which enables the compiler to simplify the extra loops that are added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for batching and produce code that is equivalent (and equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performant) as the previous implementation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This change addresses the core-mm refactoring only and a separate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will implement pte_batch_remaining(), ptep_set_wrprotects() and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set_ptes_full() in the arm64 backend to realize the performance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement as part of the work to enable contpte mappings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To ensure the arm64 is performant once implemented, this change is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> careful to only call ptep_get() once per pte batch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following microbenchmark results demonstate that there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> significant performance change after this patch. Fork is called in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tight loop in a process with 1G of populated memory and the time for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to execute is measured. 100 iterations per run, 8 runs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed on both Apple M2 (VM) and Ampere Altra (bare metal). Tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performed for case where 1G memory is comprised of order-0 folios and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> case where comprised of pte-mapped order-9 folios. Negative is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positive is slower, compared to baseline upon which the series is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Apple M2 VM   | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.1% |    0.0% |    1.2% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -1.0% |    2.0% |   -0.1% |    1.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Ampere Altra  | order-0 (pte-map) | order-9 (pte-map) |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | fork          |-------------------|-------------------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | microbench    |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |---------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | baseline      |    0.0% |    1.0% |    0.0% |    0.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | after-change  |   -0.1% |    1.2% |   -0.1% |    0.1% |
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tested-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          include/linux/pgtable.h | 80
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          mm/memory.c             | 92
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          2 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/pgtable.h b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index af7639c3b0a3..db93fb81465a 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/pgtable.h
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -205,6 +205,27 @@ static inline int pmd_young(pmd_t pmd)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          #define arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode()    do {} while (0)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          +#ifndef pte_batch_remaining
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * pte_batch_remaining - Number of pages from addr to next batch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @pte: Page table entry for the first page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @addr: Address of the first page.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * @end: Batch ceiling (e.g. end of vma).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * Some architectures (arm64) can efficiently modify a contiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ptes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * In such cases, this function returns the remaining number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pages to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * of the current batch, as defined by addr. This can be useful when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iterating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * over ptes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + * May be overridden by the architecture, else batch size is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static inline unsigned int pte_batch_remaining(pte_t pte, unsigned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> addr,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +                        unsigned long end)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +    return 1;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's a shame we now lose the optimization for all other archtiectures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was there no way to have some basic batching mechanism that doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried a bunch of things but ultimately the way I've done it was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to reduce the order-0 fork regression to 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My original v3 posting was costing 5% extra and even my first attempt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arch-specific version that didn't resolve to a compile-time constant 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cost an extra 3%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd have thought that something very basic would have worked like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check if PTE is the same when setting the PFN to 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that PFN is consecutive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Check that all PFNs belong to the same folio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I haven't tried this exact approach, but I'd be surprised if I can get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regression under 4% with this. Further along the series I spent a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>>> having to fiddle with the arm64 implementation; every conditional and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>> memory read (even when in cache) was a problem. There is just so
>>>>>>>>>>>>> little in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inner loop that every instruction matters. (At least on Ampere Altra
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apple
>>>>>>>>>>>>> M2).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course if you're willing to pay that 4-5% for order-0 then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9 is around 10% in my measurements. Personally though, I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prefer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> play
>>>>>>>>>>>>> safe and ensure the common order-0 case doesn't regress, as you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I just hacked something up, on top of my beloved rmap cleanup/batching
>>>>>>>>>>>> series. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented very generic and simple batching for large folios (all PTE
>>>>>>>>>>>> bits
>>>>>>>>>>>> except the PFN have to match).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some very quick testing (don't trust each last % ) on Intel(R) Xeon(R)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Silver
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4210R CPU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> order-0: 0.014210 -> 0.013969
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 1.7 % faster
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> order-9: 0.014373 -> 0.009149
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Around 36.3 % faster
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well I guess that shows me :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll do a review and run the tests on my HW to see if it concurs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I pushed a simple compile fixup (we need pte_next_pfn()).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've just been trying to compile and noticed this. Will take a look at your
>>>>>>>>> update.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But upon review, I've noticed the part that I think makes this difficult
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> arm64 with the contpte optimization; You are calling ptep_get() for every
>>>>>>>>> pte in
>>>>>>>>> the batch. While this is functionally correct, once arm64 has the contpte
>>>>>>>>> changes, its ptep_get() has to read every pte in the contpte block in
>>>>>>>>> order to
>>>>>>>>> gather the access and dirty bits. So if your batching function ends up
>>>>>>>>> wealking
>>>>>>>>> a 16 entry contpte block, that will cause 16 x 16 reads, which kills
>>>>>>>>> performance. That's why I added the arch-specific pte_batch_remaining()
>>>>>>>>> function; this allows the core-mm to skip to the end of the contpte
>>>>>>>>> block and
>>>>>>>>> avoid ptep_get() for the 15 tail ptes. So we end up with 16 READ_ONCE()s
>>>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>>>> of 256.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I considered making a ptep_get_noyoungdirty() variant, which would avoid
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>> gathering. But we have a similar problem in zap_pte_range() and that
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>> needs the dirty bit to update the folio. So it doesn't work there. (see
>>>>>>>>> patch 3
>>>>>>>>> in my series).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess you are going to say that we should combine both approaches, so
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> your batching loop can skip forward an arch-provided number of ptes? That
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> certainly work, but feels like an orthogonal change to what I'm trying to
>>>>>>>>> achieve :). Anyway, I'll spend some time playing with it today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can overwrite the function or add special-casing internally, yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right now, your patch is called "mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork()"
>>>>>>>> and it
>>>>>>>> doesn't do any of that besides preparing for some arm64 work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well it allows an arch to opt-in to batching. But I see your point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you want to handle your patches? Do you want to clean them up and I'll
>>>>>>> base my stuff on top? Or do you want me to take them and sort it all out?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever you prefer, it was mostly a quick prototype to see if we can achieve
>>>>>> decent performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm about to run it on Altra and M2. But I assume it will show similar results.
>>>
>>> OK results in, not looking great, which aligns with my previous experience. That
>>> said, I'm seeing some "BUG: Bad page state in process gmain  pfn:12a094" so
>>> perhaps these results are not valid...
>>
>> I didn't see that so far on x86, maybe related to the PFN fixup?
> 
> All I've done is define PFN_PTE_SHIFT for arm64 on top of your latest patch:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index b19a8aee684c..9eb0fd693df9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -359,6 +359,8 @@ static inline void set_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
>   }
>   #define set_ptes set_ptes
>   
> +#define PFN_PTE_SHIFT          PAGE_SHIFT
> +
>   /*
>    * Huge pte definitions.
>    */
> 
> 
> As an aside, I think there is a bug in arm64's set_ptes() for PA > 48-bit case. But that won't affect this.
> 
> 
> With VM_DEBUG on, this is the first warning I see during boot:
> 
> 
> [    0.278110] page:00000000c7ced4e8 refcount:12 mapcount:0 mapping:00000000b2f9739b index:0x1a8 pfn:0x1bff30
> [    0.278742] head:00000000c7ced4e8 order:2 entire_mapcount:0 nr_pages_mapped:2 pincount:0

^ Ah, you are running with mTHP. Let me play with that.

The warning would indicate that nr is too large (or something else is 
messed up).

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb