Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mm: introduce pte_move_swp_offset() helper which can move offset bidirectionally

[Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:14 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/05/2024 09:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 06.05.24 10:20, Barry Song wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:06 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 04.05.24 01:40, Barry Song wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 5:41 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 03/05/2024 01:50, Barry Song wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There could arise a necessity to obtain the first pte_t from a swap
> >>>>>> pte_t located in the middle. For instance, this may occur within the
> >>>>>> context of do_swap_page(), where a page fault can potentially occur in
> >>>>>> any PTE of a large folio. To address this, the following patch introduces
> >>>>>> pte_move_swp_offset(), a function capable of bidirectional movement by
> >>>>>> a specified delta argument. Consequently, pte_increment_swp_offset()
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You mean pte_next_swp_offset()?
> >>>>
> >>>> yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> will directly invoke it with delta = 1.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Suggested-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>    mm/internal.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>>>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> >>>>>> index c5552d35d995..cfe4aed66a5c 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/mm/internal.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> >>>>>> @@ -211,18 +211,21 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio
> >>>>>> *folio, unsigned long addr,
> >>>>>>    }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    /**
> >>>>>> - * pte_next_swp_offset - Increment the swap entry offset field of a swap
> >>>>>> pte.
> >>>>>> + * pte_move_swp_offset - Move the swap entry offset field of a swap pte
> >>>>>> + *    forward or backward by delta
> >>>>>>     * @pte: The initial pte state; is_swap_pte(pte) must be true and
> >>>>>>     *    non_swap_entry() must be false.
> >>>>>> + * @delta: The direction and the offset we are moving; forward if delta
> >>>>>> + *    is positive; backward if delta is negative
> >>>>>>     *
> >>>>>> - * Increments the swap offset, while maintaining all other fields, including
> >>>>>> + * Moves the swap offset, while maintaining all other fields, including
> >>>>>>     * swap type, and any swp pte bits. The resulting pte is returned.
> >>>>>>     */
> >>>>>> -static inline pte_t pte_next_swp_offset(pte_t pte)
> >>>>>> +static inline pte_t pte_move_swp_offset(pte_t pte, long delta)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have equivalent functions for pfn:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     pte_next_pfn()
> >>>>>     pte_advance_pfn()
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Although the latter takes an unsigned long and only moves forward currently. I
> >>>>> wonder if it makes sense to have their naming and semantics match? i.e. change
> >>>>> pte_advance_pfn() to pte_move_pfn() and let it move backwards too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess we don't have a need for that and it adds more churn.
> >>>>
> >>>> we might have a need in the below case.
> >>>> A forks B, then A and B share large folios. B unmap/exit, then large
> >>>> folios of process
> >>>> A become single-mapped.
> >>>> Right now, while writing A's folios, we are CoWing A's large folios
> >>>> into many small
> >>>> folios. I believe we can reuse the entire large folios instead of doing
> >>>> nr_pages
> >>>> CoW and page faults.
> >>>> In this case, we might want to get the first PTE from vmf->pte.
> >>>
> >>> Once we have COW reuse for large folios in place (I think you know that
> >>> I am working on that), it might make sense to "COW-reuse around",
> >>
> >> TBH, I don't know if you are working on that. please Cc me next time :-)
> >
> > I could have sworn I mentioned it to you already :)
> >
> > See
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/a9922f58-8129-4f15-b160-e0ace581bcbe@redhat.com/T/
> >
> > I'll follow-up on that soonish (now that batching is upstream and the large
> > mapcount is on its way upstream).
> >
> >>
> >>> meaning we look if some neighboring PTEs map the same large folio and
> >>> map them writable as well. But if it's really worth it, increasing page
> >>> fault latency, is to be decided separately.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, we eliminate latency for the remaining nr_pages - 1 PTEs.
> >> Perhaps we can discover a more cost-effective method to signify that a large
> >> folio is probably singly mapped?
> >
> > Yes, precisely what I am up to!
> >
> >> and only call "multi-PTEs" reuse while that
> >> condition is true in PF and avoid increasing latency always?
> >
> > I'm thinking along those lines:
> >
> > If we detect that it's exclusive, we can certainly mapped the current PTE
> > writable. Then, we can decide how much (and if) we want to fault-around writable
> > as an optimization.
> >
> > For smallish large folios, it might make sense to try faulting around most of
> > the folio.
> >
> > For large large folios (e.g., PTE-mapped 2MiB THP and bigger), we might not want
> > to fault around the whole thing -- especially if there is little benefit to be
> > had from contig-pte bits.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Another case, might be
> >>>> A forks B, and we write either A or B, we might CoW an entire large
> >>>> folios instead
> >>>> CoWing nr_pages small folios.
> >>>>
> >>>> case 1 seems more useful, I might have a go after some days. then we might
> >>>> see pte_move_pfn().
> >>> pte_move_pfn() does sound odd to me.
>
> Yes, I agree the name is odd. pte_move_swp_offset() sounds similarly odd tbh.
> Perhaps just pte_advance_swp_offset() with a negative value is clearer about
> what its doing?
>

I am not a native speaker. but dictionary says

advance:
move forward in a purposeful way.
a forward movement.

Now we are moving backward or forward :-)

> >>> It might not be required to
> >>> implement the optimization described above. (it's easier to simply read
> >>> another PTE, check if it maps the same large folio, and to batch from there)
>
> Yes agreed.
>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It appears that your proposal suggests potential reusability as follows: if we
> >> have a large folio containing 16 PTEs, you might consider reusing only 4 by
> >> examining PTEs "around" but not necessarily all 16 PTEs. please correct me
> >> if my understanding is wrong.
> >>
> >> Initially, my idea was to obtain the first PTE using pte_move_pfn() and then
> >> utilize folio_pte_batch() with the first PTE as arguments to ensure consistency
> >> in nr_pages, thus enabling complete reuse of the whole folio.
> >
> > Simply doing an vm_normal_folio(pte - X) == folio and then trying to batch from
> > there might be easier and cleaner.
> >
>