From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2265C5AD4C for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2D5C16B04DE; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:58:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 286D46B04FA; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:58:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 14ECE6B04FC; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:58:27 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024CB6B04DE for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 02:58:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01FAB6A6F for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:58:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81488466612.07.A480964 Received: from szxga08-in.huawei.com (szxga08-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.255]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BABB40007 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 07:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf04.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf04.hostedemail.com: domain of zhangpeng362@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.255 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zhangpeng362@huawei.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1700726305; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TWdkV/qdB4SfJ4xER4aubiFVPDUe6G5+sA1n78WLNok=; b=LCEGFnwm32GKGNfuP/CO0KhURNPSvMXSXN3Bv9cYUOJjQNmelCnvDh+/xkpEJiqjf2NDkW l7Xzkrcjs3p2P4eeyk9/BqtxSYQ1cn17m5LAUaHzJlg3ftXEf473+5W5I0JCfRL0RYShMu n7fRYEHkIIJ6VDlfhNZ1nh3nnv7AhoE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf04.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf04.hostedemail.com: domain of zhangpeng362@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.255 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=zhangpeng362@huawei.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1700726305; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dY88FvFCuLWA6RGZXezoEgDW+8Vi+4RlJ0+gcPqd7YzRsmvW9uqmCAychH5p5/VkXqVnDw CVfcSvXpvllhyX5xJMp5ocN+ldGCdGa73fb2/X+8Y5p8BUBdQDGN5+qAsaLKcv08dQirNZ lJyDsc0tTS/I4Ze5Xg804yNOAfTY4W8= Received: from kwepemm000020.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.53]) by szxga08-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4SbVkH5xnrz1P8YT; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:54:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.179.160] (10.174.179.160) by kwepemm000020.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:57:44 +0800 Message-ID: <48235d73-3dc6-263d-7822-6d479b753d46@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:57:44 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: filemap: avoid unnecessary major faults in filemap_fault() Content-Language: en-US To: Yin Fengwei , , CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20231122140052.4092083-1-zhangpeng362@huawei.com> <801bd0c9-7d0c-4231-93e5-7532e8231756@intel.com> From: "zhangpeng (AS)" In-Reply-To: <801bd0c9-7d0c-4231-93e5-7532e8231756@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.179.160] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems705-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.182) To kwepemm000020.china.huawei.com (7.193.23.93) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7BABB40007 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: 5pxhdhb6r44theqcojfjsc383axgrn1a X-HE-Tag: 1700726302-575082 X-HE-Meta: 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 vxVU5BRl yUTMGQxdXi9o5z7OkepjFrB5ta/YYr+COcjduvM2zZl5bhXU3pLTEvFmmZJoWfbx2CjsYnkrUZnw1xKU85Kc2hihUURDFK3ZxkBvqi7YXRdr7Y0nrPgWt7NSN7MRQyHCg+OppvkMn5RpwtYQ3CEUWJBohROPZEKq5OrqzPY3lk49LVKnrlE7xry2/DaSMh9BGUruTubKeFl2a2xQOj1MUGnym9tiEvWtee7zoqezATXYZOT6+bdFEqzCA1n2XkBUzVco0kJNqBHFcjskRNNKrNy1x/Q9uPI5ka7Ua X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 2023/11/23 13:26, Yin Fengwei wrote: > On 11/23/23 12:12, zhangpeng (AS) wrote: >> On 2023/11/23 9:09, Yin Fengwei wrote: >> >>> Hi Peng, >>> >>> On 11/22/23 22:00, Peng Zhang wrote: >>>> From: ZhangPeng >>>> >>>> The major fault occurred when using mlockall(MCL_CURRENT | MCL_FUTURE) >>>> in application, which leading to an unexpected performance issue[1]. >>>> >>>> This caused by temporarily cleared pte during a read/modify/write update >>>> of the pte, eg, do_numa_page()/change_pte_range(). >>>> >>>> For the data segment of the user-mode program, the global variable area >>>> is a private mapping. After the pagecache is loaded, the private anonymous >>>> page is generated after the COW is triggered. Mlockall can lock COW pages >>>> (anonymous pages), but the original file pages cannot be locked and may >>>> be reclaimed. If the global variable (private anon page) is accessed when >>>> vmf->pte is zeroed in numa fault, a file page fault will be triggered. >>>> >>>> At this time, the original private file page may have been reclaimed. >>>> If the page cache is not available at this time, a major fault will be >>>> triggered and the file will be read, causing additional overhead. >>>> >>>> Fix this by rechecking the pte by holding ptl in filemap_fault() before >>>> triggering a major fault. >>>> >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/9e62fd9a-bee0-52bf-50a7-498fa17434ee@huawei.com/ >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: ZhangPeng >>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang >>>> --- >>>>   mm/filemap.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c >>>> index 71f00539ac00..bb5e6a2790dc 100644 >>>> --- a/mm/filemap.c >>>> +++ b/mm/filemap.c >>>> @@ -3226,6 +3226,20 @@ vm_fault_t filemap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >>>>               mapping_locked = true; >>>>           } >>>>       } else { >>>> +        pte_t *ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, >>>> +                          vmf->address, &vmf->ptl); >>>> +        if (ptep) { >>>> +            /* >>>> +             * Recheck pte with ptl locked as the pte can be cleared >>>> +             * temporarily during a read/modify/write update. >>>> +             */ >>>> +            if (unlikely(!pte_none(ptep_get(ptep)))) >>>> +                ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE; >>>> +            pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, vmf->ptl); >>>> +            if (unlikely(ret)) >>>> +                return ret; >>>> +        } >>> I am curious. Did you try not to take PTL here and just check whether PTE is not NONE? >> Thank you for your reply. >> >> If we don't take PTL, the current use case won't trigger this issue either. > Is this verified by testing or just in theory? If we add a delay between ptep_modify_prot_start() and ptep_modify_prot_commit(), this issue will also trigger. Without delay, we haven't reproduced this problem so far. >> In most cases, if we don't take PTL, this issue won't be triggered. However, >> there is still a possibility of triggering this issue. The corner case is that >> task 2 triggers a page fault when task 1 is between ptep_modify_prot_start() >> and ptep_modify_prot_commit() in do_numa_page(). Furthermore,task 2 passes the >> check whether the PTE is not NONE before task 1 updates PTE in >> ptep_modify_prot_commit() without taking PTL. > There is very limited operations between ptep_modify_prot_start() and > ptep_modify_prot_commit(). While the code path from page fault to this check is > long. My understanding is it's very likely the PTE is not NONE when do PTE check > here without hold PTL (This is my theory. :)). Yes, there is a high probability that this issue won't occur without taking PTL. > In the other side, acquiring/releasing PTL may bring performance impaction. It may > not be big deal because the IO operations in this code path. But it's better to > collect some performance data IMHO. We tested the performance of file private mapping page fault (page_fault2.c of will-it-scale [1]) and file shared mapping page fault (page_fault3.c of will-it-scale). The difference in performance (in operations per second) before and after patch applied is about 0.7% on a x86 physical machine. [1] https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/tree/master > > Regards > Yin, Fengwei > >>> Regards >>> Yin, Fengwei >>> >>>> + >>>>           /* No page in the page cache at all */ >>>>           count_vm_event(PGMAJFAULT); >>>>           count_memcg_event_mm(vmf->vma->vm_mm, PGMAJFAULT); -- Best Regards, Peng