From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] mm: Implement folio_remove_rmap_range()
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:02:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1aada499-4bb3-668c-10d0-06e0845efca1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zg3tbsn0.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 18/07/2023 08:12, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> writes:
>
>> Like page_remove_rmap() but batch-removes the rmap for a range of pages
>> belonging to a folio. This can provide a small speedup due to less
>> manipuation of the various counters. But more crucially, if removing the
>> rmap for all pages of a folio in a batch, there is no need to
>> (spuriously) add it to the deferred split list, which saves significant
>> cost when there is contention for the split queue lock.
>>
>> All contained pages are accounted using the order-0 folio (or base page)
>> scheme.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>> ---
>> include/linux/rmap.h | 2 ++
>> mm/rmap.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 67 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/rmap.h b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> index b87d01660412..f578975c12c0 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/rmap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/rmap.h
>> @@ -200,6 +200,8 @@ void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> bool compound);
>> void page_remove_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> bool compound);
>> +void folio_remove_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma);
>>
>> void hugepage_add_anon_rmap(struct page *, struct vm_area_struct *,
>> unsigned long address, rmap_t flags);
>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>> index 2baf57d65c23..1da05aca2bb1 100644
>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>> @@ -1359,6 +1359,71 @@ void page_add_file_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma, compound);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * folio_remove_rmap_range - take down pte mappings from a range of pages
>> + * belonging to a folio. All pages are accounted as small pages.
>> + * @folio: folio that all pages belong to
>> + * @page: first page in range to remove mapping from
>> + * @nr: number of pages in range to remove mapping from
>> + * @vma: the vm area from which the mapping is removed
>> + *
>> + * The caller needs to hold the pte lock.
>> + */
>> +void folio_remove_rmap_range(struct folio *folio, struct page *page,
>> + int nr, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>
> Can we call folio_remove_ramp_range() in page_remove_rmap() if
> !compound? This can give us some opportunities to reduce code
> duplication?
I considered that, but if felt like the savings were pretty small so my opinion
was that it was cleaner not to do this. This is the best I came up with. Perhaps
you can see further improvements?
void page_remove_rmap(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
bool compound)
{
struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
atomic_t *mapped = &folio->_nr_pages_mapped;
int nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0;
bool last;
enum node_stat_item idx;
VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(compound && !PageHead(page), page);
/* Hugetlb pages are not counted in NR_*MAPPED */
if (unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) {
/* hugetlb pages are always mapped with pmds */
atomic_dec(&folio->_entire_mapcount);
return;
}
/* Is page being unmapped by PTE? Is this its last map to be removed? */
if (likely(!compound)) {
folio_remove_rmap_range(folio, page, 1, vma);
return;
} else if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio)) {
/* That test is redundant: it's for safety or to optimize out */
last = atomic_add_negative(-1, &folio->_entire_mapcount);
if (last) {
nr = atomic_sub_return_relaxed(COMPOUND_MAPPED, mapped);
if (likely(nr < COMPOUND_MAPPED)) {
nr_pmdmapped = folio_nr_pages(folio);
nr = nr_pmdmapped - (nr & FOLIO_PAGES_MAPPED);
/* Raced ahead of another remove and an add? */
if (unlikely(nr < 0))
nr = 0;
} else {
/* An add of COMPOUND_MAPPED raced ahead */
nr = 0;
}
}
}
if (nr_pmdmapped) {
if (folio_test_anon(folio))
idx = NR_ANON_THPS;
else if (folio_test_swapbacked(folio))
idx = NR_SHMEM_PMDMAPPED;
else
idx = NR_FILE_PMDMAPPED;
__lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, idx, -nr_pmdmapped);
}
if (nr) {
idx = folio_test_anon(folio) ? NR_ANON_MAPPED : NR_FILE_MAPPED;
__lruvec_stat_mod_folio(folio, idx, -nr);
/*
* Queue anon THP for deferred split if at least one
* page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
* is still mapped.
*/
if (folio_test_anon(folio) && nr < nr_pmdmapped)
deferred_split_folio(folio);
}
/*
* It would be tidy to reset folio_test_anon mapping when fully
* unmapped, but that might overwrite a racing page_add_anon_rmap
* which increments mapcount after us but sets mapping before us:
* so leave the reset to free_pages_prepare, and remember that
* it's only reliable while mapped.
*/
munlock_vma_folio(folio, vma, compound);
}
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-18 10:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-17 14:31 [PATCH v1 0/3] Optimize large folio interaction with deferred split Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 14:31 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] mm: Allow deferred splitting of arbitrary large anon folios Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-17 15:41 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-17 15:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-17 16:17 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-17 16:55 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-17 15:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-17 16:01 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 16:48 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-18 8:58 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-18 9:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-07-18 9:33 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 14:31 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] mm: Implement folio_remove_rmap_range() Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:07 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-17 15:49 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:56 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-07-17 15:09 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-17 15:51 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:53 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-18 1:14 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-18 6:22 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-18 9:51 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-18 7:12 ` Huang, Ying
2023-07-18 10:02 ` Ryan Roberts [this message]
2023-07-17 14:31 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: Batch-zap large anonymous folio PTE mappings Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 15:25 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-17 15:55 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-17 16:15 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-18 10:19 ` Ryan Roberts
2023-07-18 14:01 ` Zi Yan
2023-07-17 23:27 ` Yin Fengwei
2023-07-18 10:27 ` Ryan Roberts
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=1aada499-4bb3-668c-10d0-06e0845efca1@arm.com \
--to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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