Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD

From: Ryan Roberts
Date: Wed Mar 13 2024 - 08:02:58 EST

Next message: Robin Murphy: "Re: [PATCH 05/10] drivers/perf: Use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SAMPLING consistently"
Previous message: Ilpo Järvinen: "Re: [PATCH] PCI: fix link retrain status in pcie_wait_for_link_delay()"
In reply to: Barry Song: "Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD"
Next in thread: Lance Yang: "Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 13/03/2024 11:37, Barry Song wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:08 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 13/03/2024 10:37, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:36 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 13/03/2024 09:16, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:03 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/03/2024 07:19, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 4:01 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rework madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() to avoid splitting any large
>>>>>>>> folio that is fully and contiguously mapped in the pageout/cold vm
>>>>>>>> range. This change means that large folios will be maintained all the
>>>>>>>> way to swap storage. This both improves performance during swap-out, by
>>>>>>>> eliding the cost of splitting the folio, and sets us up nicely for
>>>>>>>> maintaining the large folio when it is swapped back in (to be covered in
>>>>>>>> a separate series).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folios that are not fully mapped in the target range are still split,
>>>>>>>> but note that behavior is changed so that if the split fails for any
>>>>>>>> reason (folio locked, shared, etc) we now leave it as is and move to the
>>>>>>>> next pte in the range and continue work on the proceeding folios.
>>>>>>>> Previously any failure of this sort would cause the entire operation to
>>>>>>>> give up and no folios mapped at higher addresses were paged out or made
>>>>>>>> cold. Given large folios are becoming more common, this old behavior
>>>>>>>> would have likely lead to wasted opportunities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While we are at it, change the code that clears young from the ptes to
>>>>>>>> use ptep_test_and_clear_young(), which is more efficent than
>>>>>>>> get_and_clear/modify/set, especially for contpte mappings on arm64,
>>>>>>>> where the old approach would require unfolding/refolding and the new
>>>>>>>> approach can be done in place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks so much better than our initial RFC.
>>>>>>> Thank you for your excellent work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks - its a team effort - I had your PoC and David's previous batching work
>>>>>> to use as a template.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> mm/madvise.c | 89 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/madvise.c b/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> index 547dcd1f7a39..56c7ba7bd558 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/madvise.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -336,6 +336,7 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>>>> LIST_HEAD(folio_list);
>>>>>>>> bool pageout_anon_only_filter;
>>>>>>>> unsigned int batch_count = 0;
>>>>>>>> + int nr;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
>>>>>>>> return -EINTR;
>>>>>>>> @@ -423,7 +424,8 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>> flush_tlb_batched_pending(mm);
>>>>>>>> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>>>>> - for (; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>> + for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>> + nr = 1;
>>>>>>>> ptent = ptep_get(pte);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
>>>>>>>> @@ -447,55 +449,66 @@ static int madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd,
>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> - * Creating a THP page is expensive so split it only if we
>>>>>>>> - * are sure it's worth. Split it if we are only owner.
>>>>>>>> + * If we encounter a large folio, only split it if it is not
>>>>>>>> + * fully mapped within the range we are operating on. Otherwise
>>>>>>>> + * leave it as is so that it can be swapped out whole. If we
>>>>>>>> + * fail to split a folio, leave it in place and advance to the
>>>>>>>> + * next pte in the range.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
>>>>>>>> - int err;
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> - if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> - if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> - if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> - folio_get(folio);
>>>>>>>> - arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>>>>> - pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>>>>>>>> - start_pte = NULL;
>>>>>>>> - err = split_folio(folio);
>>>>>>>> - folio_unlock(folio);
>>>>>>>> - folio_put(folio);
>>>>>>>> - if (err)
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> - start_pte = pte =
>>>>>>>> - pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>>>>>>> - if (!start_pte)
>>>>>>>> - break;
>>>>>>>> - arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>>>>> - pte--;
>>>>>>>> - addr -= PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>>>> - continue;
>>>>>>>> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY |
>>>>>>>> + FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>>>>>>>> + int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
>>>>>>>> + fpb_flags, NULL);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if we have a quick way to avoid folio_pte_batch() if users
>>>>>>> are doing madvise() on a portion of a large folio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good idea. Something like this?:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio)
>>>>>
>>>>> what about
>>>>>
>>>>> "If (pte_pfn(pte) == folio_pfn(folio) && max_nr >= nr_pages)"
>>>>>
>>>>> just to account for cases where the user's end address falls within
>>>>> the middle of a large folio?
>>>>
>>>> yes, even better. I'll add this for the next version.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, another minor issue is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> if (++batch_count == SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) {
>>>>> batch_count = 0;
>>>>> if (need_resched()) {
>>>>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>> pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>>>>> cond_resched();
>>>>> goto restart;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> We are increasing 1 for nr ptes, thus, we are holding PTL longer
>>>>> than small folios case? we used to increase 1 for each PTE.
>>>>> Does it matter?
>>>>
>>>> I thought about that, but the vast majority of the work is per-folio, not
>>>> per-pte. So I concluded it would be best to continue to increment per-folio.
>>>
>>> Okay. The original patch commit b2f557a21bc8 ("mm/madvise: add
>>> cond_resched() in madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range()")
>>> primarily addressed the real-time wake-up latency issue. MADV_PAGEOUT
>>> and MADV_COLD are much less critical compared
>>> to other scenarios where operations like do_anon_page or do_swap_page
>>> necessarily need PTL to progress. Therefore, adopting
>>> an approach that relatively aggressively releases the PTL seems to
>>> neither harm MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD nor disadvantage
>>> others.
>>>
>>> We are slightly increasing the duration of holding the PTL due to the
>>> iteration of folio_pte_batch() potentially taking longer than
>>> the case of small folios, which do not require it.
>>
>> If we can't scan all the PTEs in a page table without dropping the PTL
>> intermittently we have bigger problems. This all works perfectly fine in all the
>> other PTE iterators; see zap_pte_range() for example.
>
> I've no doubt about folio_pte_batch(). was just talking about the
> original rt issue
> it might affect.
>
>>
>>> However, compared
>>> to operations like folio_isolate_lru() and folio_deactivate(),
>>> this increase seems negligible. Recently, we have actually removed
>>> ptep_test_and_clear_young() for MADV_PAGEOUT,
>>> which should also benefit real-time scenarios. Nonetheless, there is a
>>> small risk with large folios, such as 1 MiB mTHP, where
>>> we may need to loop 256 times in folio_pte_batch().
>>
>> As I understand it, RT and THP are mutually exclusive. RT can't handle the extra
>> latencies THPs can cause in allocation path, etc. So I don't think you will see
>> a problem here.
>
> I was actually taking a different approach on the phones as obviously
> we have some
> UX(user-experience)/UI/audio related tasks which cannot tolerate
> allocation latency. with
> a TAO-similar optimization(we did it by ext_migratetype for some pageblocks), we
> actually don't push buddy to do compaction or reclamation for forming
> 64KiB folio.
> We immediately fallback to small folios if a zero-latency 64KiB
> allocation can't be
> obtained from some kinds of pools - ext_migratetype pageblocks.

You can opt-in to avoiding latency due to compaction, etc. with various settings
in /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag. That applies to mTHP as well. See
Documentation/admin-guide/mm/transhuge.rst. Obviously this is not as useful as
the TAO approach because it does nothing to avoid fragmentation in the first place.

The other source of latency for THP allocation, which I believe RT doesn't like,
is the cost of zeroing the huge page, IIRC.

>
>>
>>>
>>> I would vote for increasing 'nr' or maybe max(log2(nr), 1) rather than
>>> 1 for two reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. We are not making MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD worse; in fact, we are
>>> improving them by reducing the time taken to put the same
>>> number of pages into the reclaim list.
>>>
>>> 2. MADV_PAGEOUT/COLD scenarios are not urgent compared to others that
>>> genuinely require the PTL to progress. Moreover,
>>> the majority of time spent on PAGEOUT is actually reclaim_pages().
>>
>> I understand your logic. But I'd rather optimize for fewer lock acquisitions for
>> the !RT+THP case, since RT+THP is not supported.
>
> Fair enough. I agree we can postpone this until RT and THP become an
> available option.
> For now, keeping this patch simpler seems to be better.

OK thanks.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> nr = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, max_nr,
>>>>>> fpb_flags, NULL);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we are not mapping the first page of the folio, then it can't be a full
>>>>>> mapping, so no need to call folio_pte_batch(). Just split it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (nr < folio_nr_pages(folio)) {
>>>>>>>> + int err;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (folio_estimated_sharers(folio) > 1)
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> + if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> + if (!folio_trylock(folio))
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> + folio_get(folio);
>>>>>>>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>>>>> + pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
>>>>>>>> + start_pte = NULL;
>>>>>>>> + err = split_folio(folio);
>>>>>>>> + folio_unlock(folio);
>>>>>>>> + folio_put(folio);
>>>>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> + start_pte = pte =
>>>>>>>> + pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
>>>>>>>> + if (!start_pte)
>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>>>>>> + nr = 0;
>>>>>>>> + continue;
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> * Do not interfere with other mappings of this folio and
>>>>>>>> - * non-LRU folio.
>>>>>>>> + * non-LRU folio. If we have a large folio at this point, we
>>>>>>>> + * know it is fully mapped so if its mapcount is the same as its
>>>>>>>> + * number of pages, it must be exclusive.
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> - if (!folio_test_lru(folio) || folio_mapcount(folio) != 1)
>>>>>>>> + if (!folio_test_lru(folio) ||
>>>>>>>> + folio_mapcount(folio) != folio_nr_pages(folio))
>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks so perfect and is exactly what I wanted to achieve.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if (pageout_anon_only_filter && !folio_test_anon(folio))
>>>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> - if (!pageout && pte_young(ptent)) {
>>>>>>>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
>>>>>>>> - tlb->fullmm);
>>>>>>>> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
>>>>>>>> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
>>>>>>>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>>>>>> + if (!pageout) {
>>>>>>>> + for (; nr != 0; nr--, pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>> + if (ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, addr, pte))
>>>>>>>> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks so smart. if it is not pageout, we have increased pte
>>>>>>> and addr here; so nr is 0 and we don't need to increase again in
>>>>>>> for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> otherwise, nr won't be 0. so we will increase addr and
>>>>>>> pte by nr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. I'm hoping that Lance is able to follow a similar pattern for
>>>>>> madvise_free_pte_range().
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overall, LGTM,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Barry
>>

Next message: Robin Murphy: "Re: [PATCH 05/10] drivers/perf: Use PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SAMPLING consistently"
Previous message: Ilpo Järvinen: "Re: [PATCH] PCI: fix link retrain status in pcie_wait_for_link_delay()"
In reply to: Barry Song: "Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD"
Next in thread: Lance Yang: "Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]