Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-159525-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240425211136.486184-1-zi.yan@sent.com> <CAK1f24nZFJKAyEX3A8DsFA8_VkdtYiB251WxvTa9fcnmi01aOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK1f24nZFJKAyEX3A8DsFA8_VkdtYiB251WxvTa9fcnmi01aOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:36:32 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24=ouD18JHWEGOW4hmauU-J=QQE9MQQA+shm0XX-SPLhMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to
 deferred split list
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, 
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:45=E2=80=AFAM Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 5:11=E2=80=AFAM Zi Yan <zi.yan@sent.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> >
> > In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split list
> > if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. But it is possible that
> > the folio is fully unmapped and adding it to deferred split list is
> > unnecessary.
> >
> > For PMD-mapped THPs, that was not really an issue, because removing the
> > last PMD mapping in the absence of PTE mappings would not have added th=
e
> > folio to the deferred split queue.
> >
> > However, for PTE-mapped THPs, which are now more prominent due to mTHP,
> > they are always added to the deferred split queue. One side effect
> > is that the THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE stat for a PTE-mapped folio can be
> > unintentionally increased, making it look like there are many partially
> > mapped folios -- although the whole folio is fully unmapped stepwise.
> >
> > Core-mm now tries batch-unmapping consecutive PTEs of PTE-mapped THPs
> > where possible starting from commit b06dc281aa99 ("mm/rmap: introduce
> > folio_remove_rmap_[pte|ptes|pmd]()"). When it happens, a whole PTE-mapp=
ed
> > folio is unmapped in one go and can avoid being added to deferred split
> > list, reducing the THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE noise. But there will still =
be
> > noise when we cannot batch-unmap a complete PTE-mapped folio in one go
> > -- or where this type of batching is not implemented yet, e.g., migrati=
on.
> >
> > To avoid the unnecessary addition, folio->_nr_pages_mapped is checked
> > to tell if the whole folio is unmapped. If the folio is already on
> > deferred split list, it will be skipped, too.
> >
> > Note: commit 98046944a159 ("mm: huge_memory: add the missing
> > folio_test_pmd_mappable() for THP split statistics") tried to exclude
> > mTHP deferred split stats from THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE, but it does not
> > fix the above issue. A fully unmapped PTE-mapped order-9 THP was still
> > added to deferred split list and counted as THP_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE,
> > since nr is 512 (non zero), level is RMAP_LEVEL_PTE, and inside
> > deferred_split_folio() the order-9 folio is folio_test_pmd_mappable().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/rmap.c | 8 +++++---
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index a7913a454028..220ad8a83589 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -1553,9 +1553,11 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(=
struct folio *folio,
> >                  * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
> >                  * is still mapped.
> >                  */
> > -               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
> > -                       if (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdm=
apped)
> > -                               deferred_split_folio(folio);
> > +               if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio) &=
&
> > +                   list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list) &&
>
> FWIW
>
> Perhaps it would achieve the same check, ensuring that at least one
> page of the folio is unmapped while at least one page remains mapped.
>
>  +                   atomic_read(mapped) && nr < folio_nr_pages(folio))
>  -                   ((level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE && atomic_read(mapped)=
) ||
>  -                    (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PMD && nr < nr_pmdmapped))=
)

Second thought: it=E2=80=99s probably best to leave it as is. The compiler =
should
optimize out based on the level enum, which is what I overlooked.

Thanks,
Lance

>
> Thanks,
> Lance
>
>
> > +                   ((level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PTE && atomic_read(mapped=
)) ||
> > +                    (level =3D=3D RMAP_LEVEL_PMD && nr < nr_pmdmapped)=
))
> > +                       deferred_split_folio(folio);
> >         }
> >
> >         /*
> >
> > base-commit: 66313c66dd90e8711a8b63fc047ddfc69c53636a
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >