Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid unnecessary page fault retires on shared memory types

[Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>]

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 05:17:48PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> I observed that for each of the shared file-backed page faults, we're very
> likely to retry one more time for the 1st write fault upon no page.  It's
> because we'll need to release the mmap lock for dirty rate limit purpose
> with balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited() (in fault_dirty_shared_page()).
> 
> Then after that throttling we return VM_FAULT_RETRY.
> 
> We did that probably because VM_FAULT_RETRY is the only way we can return
> to the fault handler at that time telling it we've released the mmap lock.
> 
> However that's not ideal because it's very likely the fault does not need
> to be retried at all since the pgtable was well installed before the
> throttling, so the next continuous fault (including taking mmap read lock,
> walk the pgtable, etc.) could be in most cases unnecessary.
> 
> It's not only slowing down page faults for shared file-backed, but also add
> more mmap lock contention which is in most cases not needed at all.
> 
> To observe this, one could try to write to some shmem page and look at
> "pgfault" value in /proc/vmstat, then we should expect 2 counts for each
> shmem write simply because we retried, and vm event "pgfault" will capture
> that.
> 
> To make it more efficient, add a new VM_FAULT_COMPLETED return code just to
> show that we've completed the whole fault and released the lock.  It's also
> a hint that we should very possibly not need another fault immediately on
> this page because we've just completed it.
> 
> This patch provides a ~12% perf boost on my aarch64 test VM with a simple
> program sequentially dirtying 400MB shmem file being mmap()ed:
> 
>   Before: 650980.20 (+-1.94%)
>   After:  569396.40 (+-1.38%)
> 
> I believe it could help more than that.
> 
> We need some special care on GUP and the s390 pgfault handler (for gmap
> code before returning from pgfault), the rest changes in the page fault
> handlers should be relatively straightforward.
> 
> Another thing to mention is that mm_account_fault() does take this new
> fault as a generic fault to be accounted, unlike VM_FAULT_RETRY.
> 
> I explicitly didn't touch hmm_vma_fault() and break_ksm() because they do
> not handle VM_FAULT_RETRY even with existing code, so I'm literally keeping
> them as-is.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>

The change makes sense to me, but the unlock/retry signaling is
tricky...

> @@ -1227,6 +1247,18 @@ int fixup_user_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
>  		return -EINTR;
>  
>  	ret = handle_mm_fault(vma, address, fault_flags, NULL);
> +
> +	if (ret & VM_FAULT_COMPLETED) {
> +		/*
> +		 * NOTE: it's a pity that we need to retake the lock here
> +		 * to pair with the unlock() in the callers. Ideally we
> +		 * could tell the callers so they do not need to unlock.
> +		 */
> +		mmap_read_lock(mm);
> +		*unlocked = true;
> +		return 0;
> +	}

unlocked can be NULL inside the function, yet you assume it's non-NULL
here. This is okay because COMPLETED can only be returned if RETRY is
set, and when RETRY is set unlocked must be non-NULL. It's correct but
not very obvious.

It might be cleaner to have separate flags for ALLOW_RETRY and
ALLOW_UNLOCK, with corresponding VM_FAULT_RETRY and VM_FAULT_UNLOCKED?
Even if not all combinations are used.

> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2942,7 +2942,7 @@ static vm_fault_t fault_dirty_shared_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  		balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping);
>  		if (fpin) {
>  			fput(fpin);
> -			return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> +			return VM_FAULT_COMPLETED;

There is one oddity in this now.

It completes the fault and no longer triggers a retry. Yet it's still
using maybe_unlock_mmap_for_io() and subject to retry limiting. This
means that if the fault already retried once, this code won't drop the
mmap_sem to call balance_dirty_pages() - even though it safely could
and should do so, without risking endless retries.

Here too IMO the distinction between ALLOW_RETRY|TRIED and
ALLOW_UNLOCK would make things cleaner and more obvious.