From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
Chuanhua Han <hanchuanhua@oppo.com>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>,
Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: entirely reuse the whole anon mTHP in do_wp_page
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:07:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b7853f0f-7044-4c49-931c-c61900229b19@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4ynOeOaRb3=xBc1uETn9oLTkSpZGoEYGpTeJ1F4uqB7bA@mail.gmail.com>
On 31.08.24 11:55, Barry Song wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 9:44 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 31.08.24 11:23, Barry Song wrote:
>>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>>>
>>> On a physical phone, it's sometimes observed that deferred_split
>>> mTHPs account for over 15% of the total mTHPs. Profiling by Chuanhua
>>> indicates that the majority of these originate from the typical fork
>>> scenario.
>>> When the child process either execs or exits, the parent process should
>>> ideally be able to reuse the entire mTHP. However, the current kernel
>>> lacks this capability and instead places the mTHP into split_deferred,
>>> performing a CoW (Copy-on-Write) on just a single subpage of the mTHP.
>>>
>>> main()
>>> {
>>> #define SIZE 1024 * 1024UL
>>> void *p = malloc(SIZE);
>>> memset(p, 0x11, SIZE);
>>> if (fork() == 0)
>>> exec(....);
>>> /*
>>> * this will trigger cow one subpage from
>>> * mTHP and put mTHP into split_deferred
>>> * list
>>> */
>>> *(int *)(p + 10) = 10;
>>> printf("done\n");
>>> while(1);
>>> }
>>>
>>> This leads to two significant issues:
>>>
>>> * Memory Waste: Before the mTHP is fully split by the shrinker,
>>> it wastes memory. In extreme cases, such as with a 64KB mTHP,
>>> the memory usage could be 64KB + 60KB until the last subpage
>>> is written, at which point the mTHP is freed.
>>>
>>> * Fragmentation and Performance Loss: It destroys large folios
>>> (negating the performance benefits of CONT-PTE) and fragments memory.
>>>
>>> To address this, we should aim to reuse the entire mTHP in such cases.
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> I’ve renamed wp_page_reuse() to wp_folio_reuse() and added an
>>> entirely_reuse argument because I’m not sure if there are still cases
>>> where we reuse a subpage within an mTHP. For now, I’m setting
>>> entirely_reuse to true only for the newly supported case, while all
>>> other cases still get false. Please let me know if this is incorrect—if
>>> we don’t reuse subpages at all, we could remove the argument.
>>
>> See [1] I sent out this week, that is able to reuse even without
>> scanning page tables. If we find the the folio is exclusive we could try
>> processing surrounding PTEs that map the same folio.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240829165627.2256514-1-david@redhat.com
>
> Great! It looks like I missed your patch again. Since you've implemented this
> in a better way, I’d prefer to use your patchset.
I wouldn't say better, just more universally. And while taking care of
properly sync'ing the mapcount vs. refcount :P
>
> I’m curious about how you're handling ptep_set_access_flags_nr() or similar
> things because I couldn’t find the related code in your patch 10/17:
>
> [PATCH v1 10/17] mm: COW reuse support for PTE-mapped THP with CONFIG_MM_ID
>
> Am I missing something?
The idea is to keep individual write faults as fast as possible. So the
patch set keeps it simple and only reuses a single PTE at a time,
setting that one PAE and mapping it writable.
As the patch states, it might be reasonable to optimize some cases,
maybe also only on some architectures. For example to fault-around and
map the other ones writable as well. It might not always be desirable
though, especially not for larger folios.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-31 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-31 9:23 Barry Song
2024-08-31 9:44 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-31 9:55 ` Barry Song
2024-08-31 10:07 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2024-08-31 10:21 ` Barry Song
2024-08-31 10:29 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-31 10:49 ` Barry Song
2024-08-31 11:02 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-31 9:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-08-31 10:09 ` Barry Song
2024-08-31 10:14 ` 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=b7853f0f-7044-4c49-931c-c61900229b19@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=chrisl@kernel.org \
--cc=hanchuanhua@oppo.com \
--cc=kaleshsingh@google.com \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.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