From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
"David Hildenbrand" <david@redhat.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
"Anshuman Khandual" <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large anon folios
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:01:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878rbof8cs.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a60af4b1-13c2-2d05-d112-e3dce94bccb0@arm.com> (Ryan Roberts's message of "Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:29:57 +0100")
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
> On 10/07/2023 06:37, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>>
>>> Somehow I managed to reply only to the linux-arm-kernel list on first attempt so
>>> resending:
>>>
>>> On 07/07/2023 09:21, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> With the introduction of large folios for anonymous memory, we would
>>>>> like to be able to split them when they have unmapped subpages, in order
>>>>> to free those unused pages under memory pressure. So remove the
>>>>> artificial requirement that the large folio needed to be at least
>>>>> PMD-sized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> index 82ef5ba363d1..bbcb2308a1c5 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>>> @@ -1474,7 +1474,7 @@ void page_remove_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>> * page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
>>>>> * is still mapped.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>>> + if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>>> if (!compound || nr < nr_pmdmapped)
>>>>> deferred_split_folio(folio);
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> One possible issue is that even for large folios mapped only in one
>>>> process, in zap_pte_range(), we will always call deferred_split_folio()
>>>> unnecessarily before freeing a large folio.
>>>
>>> Hi Huang, thanks for reviewing!
>>>
>>> I have a patch that solves this problem by determining a range of ptes covered
>>> by a single folio and doing a "batch zap". This prevents the need to add the
>>> folio to the deferred split queue, only to remove it again shortly afterwards.
>>> This reduces lock contention and I can measure a performance improvement for the
>>> kernel compilation benchmark. See [1].
>>>
>>> However, I decided to remove it from this patch set on Yu Zhao's advice. We are
>>> aiming for the minimal patch set to start with and wanted to focus people on
>>> that. I intend to submit it separately later on.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230626171430.3167004-8-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
>>
>> Thanks for your information! "batch zap" can solve the problem.
>>
>> And, I agree with Matthew's comments to fix the large folios interaction
>> issues before merging the patches to allocate large folios as in the
>> following email.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/ZKVdUDuwNWDUCWc5@casper.infradead.org/
>>
>> If so, we don't need to introduce the above problem or a large patchset.
>
> I appreciate Matthew's and others position about not wanting to merge a minimal
> implementation while there are some fundamental features (e.g. compaction) it
> doesn't play well with - I'm working to create a definitive list so these items
> can be tracked and tackled.
Good to know this, Thanks!
> That said, I don't see this "batch zap" patch as an example of this. It's just a
> performance enhancement that improves things even further than large anon folios
> on their own. I'd rather concentrate on the core changes first then deal with
> this type of thing later. Does that work for you?
IIUC, allocating large folios upon page fault depends on splitting large
folios in page_remove_rmap() to avoid memory wastage. Splitting large
folios in page_remove_rmap() depends on "batch zap" to avoid performance
regression in zap_pte_range(). So we need them to be done earlier. Or
I miss something?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 9:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-03 13:53 [PATCH v2 0/5] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Non-pmd-mappable, large folios for folio_add_new_anon_rmap() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 19:05 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 2:13 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 11:19 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 2:14 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large anon folios Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 8:21 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-07 9:42 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 5:37 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 8:29 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 9:01 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2023-07-10 9:39 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 1:56 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: Default implementation of arch_wants_pte_order() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 19:50 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 13:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 2:07 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 9:11 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 17:24 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 18:01 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-06 19:33 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 10:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 2:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 3:02 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 3:59 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 5:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 5:42 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 12:36 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 13:23 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 1:40 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 1:23 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 2:18 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: FLEXIBLE_THP for improved performance Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 15:51 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-03 16:01 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-04 1:35 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 14:08 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:47 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 3:45 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 14:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:35 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-04 23:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-05 9:54 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 12:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 8:01 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-07 9:52 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 11:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 13:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 14:07 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 15:13 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 16:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 16:22 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 19:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-10 8:41 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 3:03 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 8:55 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 9:18 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 9:25 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 0:48 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-10 2:49 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-03 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: mm: Override arch_wants_pte_order() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-03 20:02 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 2:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] variable-order, large folios for anonymous memory Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 6:22 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-07-04 7:11 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-04 15:36 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-04 23:52 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-05 0:21 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 10:16 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-05 19:00 ` Yu Zhao
2023-07-05 19:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-06 8:02 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-07 11:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-07 13:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-07 13:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-10 10:07 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-10 16:57 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-10 16:53 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-19 15:49 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-19 16:05 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-19 18:37 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-11 21:11 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-07-11 21:59 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878rbof8cs.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).