Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-111731-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:55:11 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
	Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Andrew Jones <andrew.jones@linux.dev>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@kernel.org>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic
 follow_page_mask code
Message-ID: <Zf2p38Pb51T3e9uB@x1n>
References: <20240321220802.679544-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240321220802.679544-13-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240322133012.GI159172@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240322133012.GI159172@nvidia.com>

Jason,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
> > a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched.  That shouldn't be a
> > problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when
> > page is commonly present, fast-gup will already succeed, while when the
> > page is indeed missing and require a follow up page fault, the slow gup
> > degrade will probably buried in the fault paths anyway.  It also explains
> > why slow gup for THP used to be very slow before 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup:
> > accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"") lands, the latter not part of
> > a performance analysis but a side benefit.  If the performance will be a
> > concern, we can consider handle CONT_PTE in follow_page().
> 
> I think this is probably fine for the moment, at least for this
> series, as CONT_PTE is still very new.
> 
> But it will need to be optimized. "slow" GUP is the only GUP that is
> used by FOLL_LONGTERM and it still needs to be optimized because you
> can't assume a FOLL_LONGTERM user will be hitting the really slow
> fault path. There are enough important cases where it is just reading
> already populted page tables, and these days, often with large folios.

Ah, I thought FOLL_LONGTERM should work in most cases for fast-gup,
especially for hugetlb, but maybe I missed something?  I do see that devmap
skips fast-gup for LONGTERM, we also have that writeback issue but none of
those that I can find applies to hugetlb.  This might be a problem indeed
if we have hugetlb cont_pte pages that will constantly fallback to slow
gup.

OTOH, I also agree with you that such batching would be nice to have for
slow-gup, likely devmap or many fs (exclude shmem/hugetlb) file mappings
can at least benefit from it due to above.  But then that'll be a more
generic issue to solve, IOW, we still don't do that for !hugetlb cont_pte
large folios, before or after this series.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Peter Xu