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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
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 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 9:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 167+ 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 ` 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 13:53 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-03 19:05 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-03 19:05 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 2:13 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 2:13 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 11:19 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 11:19 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 2:14 ` Yin, Fengwei 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 2023-07-03 13:53 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 8:21 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-07 8:21 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-07 9:39 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 9:42 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 9:42 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 5:37 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 5:37 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 8:29 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 8:29 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 9:01 ` Huang, Ying [this message] 2023-07-10 9:01 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 9:39 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 9:39 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-11 1:56 ` Huang, Ying 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 13:53 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-03 19:50 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-03 19:50 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 13:20 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 13:20 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 2:07 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 2:07 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 9:11 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 9:11 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 17:24 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 17:24 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 18:01 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 18:01 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-06 19:33 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-06 19:33 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 10:00 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 10:00 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 2:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 2:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 3:02 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 3:02 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 3:59 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 3:59 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 5:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 5:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 5:42 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 5:42 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 12:36 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 12:36 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 13:23 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 13:23 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 1:40 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 1:40 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 1:23 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 1:23 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 2:18 ` Yin Fengwei 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 13:53 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-03 15:51 ` kernel test robot 2023-07-03 15:51 ` kernel test robot 2023-07-03 16:01 ` kernel test robot 2023-07-03 16:01 ` kernel test robot 2023-07-04 1:35 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 1:35 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 14:08 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 14:08 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 23:47 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 23:47 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 3:45 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 3:45 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 14:20 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 14:20 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 23:35 ` Yin Fengwei 2023-07-04 23:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-04 23:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-05 9:54 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 9:54 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 12:08 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-05 12:08 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 8:01 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-07 8:01 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-07 9:52 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 9:52 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 11:29 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 11:29 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 13:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 13:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 14:07 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 14:07 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 15:13 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 15:13 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 16:06 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 16:06 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 16:22 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 16:22 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 19:06 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 19:06 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-10 8:41 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 8:41 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 3:03 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 3:03 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 8:55 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 8:55 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 9:18 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 9:18 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 9:25 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 9:25 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-11 0:48 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-11 0:48 ` Huang, Ying 2023-07-10 2:49 ` 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 13:53 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-03 20:02 ` Yu Zhao 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 2:18 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 6:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 6:22 ` Yin, Fengwei 2023-07-04 7:11 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 7:11 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-04 15:36 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 15:36 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-04 23:52 ` Yin Fengwei 2023-07-05 0:21 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 0:21 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 10:16 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 10:16 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-05 19:00 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 19:00 ` Yu Zhao 2023-07-05 19:38 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-05 19:38 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-06 8:02 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-06 8:02 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-07 11:40 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 11:40 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 13:12 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 13:12 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-07 13:24 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-07 13:24 ` David Hildenbrand 2023-07-10 10:07 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 10:07 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-10 16:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-10 16:57 ` Matthew Wilcox 2023-07-10 16:53 ` Zi Yan 2023-07-10 16:53 ` Zi Yan 2023-07-19 15:49 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-19 15:49 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-19 16:05 ` Zi Yan 2023-07-19 16:05 ` Zi Yan 2023-07-19 18:37 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-19 18:37 ` Ryan Roberts 2023-07-11 21:11 ` Luis Chamberlain 2023-07-11 21:11 ` Luis Chamberlain 2023-07-11 21:59 ` Matthew Wilcox 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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.