Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-6945-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <c244707c-8c0c-4593-ab45-d8f165dbc5ee@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 14:13:30 +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>
 <3194b8a5-3f72-4d9e-a267-fbdad32ad864@redhat.com>
 <f2f420cf-678d-466d-ac30-bc8251f16632@arm.com>
 <9f99a3ca-051e-4b1b-81e9-8456d8e422ad@redhat.com>
 <c1913fa2-d313-4f05-a649-da69b6d31d2a@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: <c1913fa2-d313-4f05-a649-da69b6d31d2a@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 20.12.23 14:10, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 20/12/2023 13:06, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.12.23 13:04, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2023 11:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Err... Its in mm-unstable, but I'm not enabling any sizes. It should only be set
>>> up for PMD-sized THP.
>>>
>>> I am using XFS though, so I imagine its a file folio.
>>>
>>> I've rebased your rmap cleanup and fork batching to the version of mm-unstable
>>> that I was doing all my other testing with so I could compare numbers. But its
>>> not very old (perhaps a week). All the patches applied without any conflict.
>>
>>
>> It would also be interesting to know if the compiler on arm64 decides to do
>> something stupid: like not inline wrprotect_ptes().
>>
>> Because with an effective unlikely(folio_test_large(folio)) we shouldn't see
>> that much overhead.
>>
> 
> What version of gcc are you using? I must confess I'm using the Ubuntu 20.04
> default version:
> 
> aarch64-linux-gnu-gcc (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.2) 9.4.0
> 
> Perhaps I should grab something a bit newer?
> 

gcc version 13.2.1 20231011 (Red Hat 13.2.1-4) (GCC)

 From Fedora 38. So "a bit" newer :P

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb