Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/mprotect: encourage inlining with __always_inline

Pedro Falcato
2026-03-20T09:59:37Z

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:28:47PM +0100, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 3/19/26 19:31, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> > Encourage the compiler to inline batch PTE logic and resolve constant
> > branches by adding __always_inline strategically.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>
> > ---
> > mm/mprotect.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index 9681f055b9fc..1bd0d4aa07c2 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > return can_change_shared_pte_writable(vma, pte);
> > }
> >
> > -static int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep,
> > +static __always_inline int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep,
> > pte_t pte, int max_nr_ptes, fpb_t flags)
> > {
> > /* No underlying folio, so cannot batch */
> > @@ -117,9 +117,9 @@ static int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep,
> > }
> >
> > /* Set nr_ptes number of ptes, starting from idx */
> > -static void prot_commit_flush_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> > - pte_t *ptep, pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent, int nr_ptes,
> > - int idx, bool set_write, struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> > +static __always_inline void prot_commit_flush_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent,
> > + int nr_ptes, int idx, bool set_write, struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> > {
> > /*
> > * Advance the position in the batch by idx; note that if idx > 0,
> > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int page_anon_exclusive_sub_batch(int start_idx, int max_len,
> > * pte of the batch. Therefore, we must individually check all pages and
> > * retrieve sub-batches.
> > */
> > -static void commit_anon_folio_batch(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > +static __always_inline void commit_anon_folio_batch(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > struct folio *folio, struct page *first_page, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep,
> > pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent, int nr_ptes, struct mmu_gather *tlb)
> > {
>
> From my micro-optimization work on zapping and fork, I learned that
> these batching functions are best optimized for order-0 page by
> explicitly calling them from the code with "nr_ptes == 1" and then
> force-inlining them. nr_ptes and all loops will essentially be optimized
> out.
>
> With no such explicit constants, is there really a real benefit to be
> had here?

Per my measurements, I could measure a real speedup here. Of course things
may heavily depend on the microarchitecture you use. I want to note that
these three functions are part of the hot loop and thus we definitely want
them inlined. Particularly if we start special-casing stuff. You can cut
down _a lot_ of code if you simply tell it "yeah don't bother you're looking
at 1 pte only".

Of course a lot of this is just codegen fengshui but I tried sticking to
good fundamentals and inlining things that matter, while noinlining
things that aren't frequent. As-is the compiler seems to make poor
inlining decisions on its own (and basically every static function is
inlined, except e.g prot_commit_flush_ptes, FOR SOME REASON).

--
Pedro