From: lizhe.67@bytedance.com
To: david@redhat.com
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, jhubbard@nvidia.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
lizhe.67@bytedance.com, muchun.song@linux.dev, peterx@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gup: optimize longterm pin_user_pages() for large folio
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 20:20:03 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250530122003.44555-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a98bc945-0020-40ce-a650-47dcd0274001@redhat.com>
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:31:26 +0200, david@redhat.com wrote:
> On 30.05.25 11:23, lizhe.67@bytedance.com wrote:
> > From: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
> >
> > In the current implementation of the longterm pin_user_pages() function,
> > we invoke the collect_longterm_unpinnable_folios() function. This function
> > iterates through the list to check whether each folio belongs to the
> > "longterm_unpinnabled" category. The folios in this list essentially
> > correspond to a contiguous region of user-space addresses, with each folio
> > representing a physical address in increments of PAGESIZE. If this
> > user-space address range is mapped with large folio, we can optimize the
> > performance of function pin_user_pages() by reducing the number of if-else
> > branches and the frequency of memory accesses using READ_ONCE. This patch
> > leverages this approach to achieve performance improvements.
> >
> > The performance test results obtained through the gup_test tool from the
> > kernel source tree are as follows. We achieve an improvement of over 75%
> > for large folio with pagesize=2M. For normal page, we have only observed
> > a very slight degradation in performance.
> >
> > Without this patch:
> >
> > [root@localhost ~] ./gup_test -HL -m 8192 -n 512
> > TAP version 13
> > 1..1
> > # PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK: Time: get:13623 put:10799 us#
> > ok 1 ioctl status 0
> > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> > [root@localhost ~]# ./gup_test -LT -m 8192 -n 512
> > TAP version 13
> > 1..1
> > # PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK: Time: get:129733 put:31753 us#
> > ok 1 ioctl status 0
> > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> >
> > With this patch:
> >
> > [root@localhost ~] ./gup_test -HL -m 8192 -n 512
> > TAP version 13
> > 1..1
> > # PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK: Time: get:3386 put:10844 us#
> > ok 1 ioctl status 0
> > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> > [root@localhost ~]# ./gup_test -LT -m 8192 -n 512
> > TAP version 13
> > 1..1
> > # PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK: Time: get:131652 put:31393 us#
> > ok 1 ioctl status 0
> > # Totals: pass:1 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> > mm/gup.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index 84461d384ae2..8c11418036e2 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2317,6 +2317,25 @@ static void pofs_unpin(struct pages_or_folios *pofs)
> > unpin_user_pages(pofs->pages, pofs->nr_entries);
> > }
> >
> > +static struct folio *pofs_next_folio(struct folio *folio,
> > + struct pages_or_folios *pofs, long *index_ptr)
> > +{
> > + long i = *index_ptr + 1;
> > + unsigned long nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > +
> > + if (!pofs->has_folios)
> > + while ((i < pofs->nr_entries) &&
> > + /* Is this page part of this folio? */
> > + (folio_page_idx(folio, pofs->pages[i]) < nr_pages))
>
> passing in a page that does not belong to the folio looks shaky and not
> future proof.
>
> folio_page() == folio
>
> is cleaner
Yes, this approach is cleaner. However, when obtaining a folio
corresponding to a page through the page_folio() interface,
READ_ONCE() is used internally to read from memory, which results
in the performance of pin_user_pages() being worse than before.
Could you please suggest an alternative approach to address this
problem?
Thanks,
Zhe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-30 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-05-30 9:23 lizhe.67
2025-05-30 9:53 ` Dev Jain
2025-05-30 10:04 ` lizhe.67
2025-05-30 10:12 ` Dev Jain
2025-05-30 11:31 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-30 12:20 ` lizhe.67 [this message]
2025-05-30 13:08 ` David Hildenbrand
2025-05-30 15:02 ` lizhe.67
2025-05-30 20:37 ` David Hildenbrand
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=20250530122003.44555-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
--to=lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=peterx@redhat.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