From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/rmap: do not add fully unmapped large folio to deferred split list
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:32:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bc8effda-6ff4-458d-a3ee-0d6f25cd41e0@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2C698A64-268C-4E43-9EDE-6238B656A391@nvidia.com>
On 12.04.24 16:35, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2024, at 11:46, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> On 11.04.24 17:32, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> From: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> In __folio_remove_rmap(), a large folio is added to deferred split list
>>> if any page in a folio loses its final mapping. It is possible that
>>> the folio is unmapped fully, but it is unnecessary to add the folio
>>> to deferred split list at all. Fix it by checking folio mapcount before
>>> adding a folio to deferred split list.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/rmap.c | 9 ++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
>>> index 2608c40dffad..d599a772e282 100644
>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>> @@ -1494,7 +1494,7 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
>>> enum rmap_level level)
>>> {
>>> atomic_t *mapped = &folio->_nr_pages_mapped;
>>> - int last, nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0;
>>> + int last, nr = 0, nr_pmdmapped = 0, mapcount = 0;
>>> enum node_stat_item idx;
>>> __folio_rmap_sanity_checks(folio, page, nr_pages, level);
>>> @@ -1506,7 +1506,8 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> - atomic_sub(nr_pages, &folio->_large_mapcount);
>>> + mapcount = atomic_sub_return(nr_pages,
>>> + &folio->_large_mapcount) + 1;
>>
>> That becomes a new memory barrier on some archs. Rather just re-read it below. Re-reading should be fine here.
>
> Would atomic_sub_return_relaxed() work? Originally I was using atomic_read(mapped)
> below, but to save an atomic op, I chose to read mapcount here.
Some points:
(1) I suggest reading about atomic get/set vs. atomic RMW vs. atomic
RMW that return a value -- and how they interact with memory barriers.
Further, how relaxed variants are only optimized on some architectures.
atomic_read() is usually READ_ONCE(), which is just an "ordinary" memory
access that should not be refetched. Usually cheaper than most other stuff
that involves atomics.
(2) We can either use folio_large_mapcount() == 0 or !atomic_read(mapped)
to figure out if the folio is now completely unmapped.
(3) There is one fundamental issue: if we are not batch-unmapping the whole
thing, we will still add the folios to the deferred split queue. Migration
would still do that, or if there are multiple VMAs covering a folio.
(4) We should really avoid making common operations slower only to make
some unreliable stats less unreliable.
We should likely do something like the following, which might even be a bit
faster in some cases because we avoid a function call in case we unmap
individual PTEs by checking _deferred_list ahead of time
diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 2608c40dffad..356598b3dc3c 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -1553,9 +1553,11 @@ static __always_inline void __folio_remove_rmap(struct folio *folio,
* page of the folio is unmapped and at least one page
* is still mapped.
*/
- if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio))
- if (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmapped)
- deferred_split_folio(folio);
+ if (folio_test_large(folio) && folio_test_anon(folio) &&
+ (level == RMAP_LEVEL_PTE || nr < nr_pmdmapped) &&
+ atomic_read(mapped) &&
+ data_race(list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)))
+ deferred_split_folio(folio);
}
I also thought about handling the scenario where we unmap the whole
think in smaller chunks. We could detect "!atomic_read(mapped)" and
detect that it is on the deferred split list, and simply remove it
from that list incrementing an THP_UNDO_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE event.
But it would be racy with concurrent remapping of the folio (might happen with
anon folios in corner cases I guess).
What we can do is the following, though:
diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
index dc30139590e6..f05cba1807f2 100644
--- a/mm/huge_memory.c
+++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
@@ -3133,6 +3133,8 @@ void folio_undo_large_rmappable(struct folio *folio)
ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
+ if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio))
+ count_vm_event(THP_UNDO_DEFERRED_SPLIT_PAGE);
ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
}
Adding the right event of course.
Then it's easy to filter out these "temporarily added to the list, but never split
before the folio was freed" cases.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-12 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-11 15:32 Zi Yan
2024-04-11 15:46 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-11 19:01 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-11 21:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-11 21:59 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-12 14:21 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-12 14:31 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-12 18:29 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-12 19:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-12 20:21 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-12 19:06 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-12 14:35 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-12 19:32 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2024-04-12 20:35 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-15 15:43 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-12 21:06 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-12 22:29 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-12 22:59 ` Zi Yan
2024-04-13 0:50 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-15 15:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-15 17:54 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-15 19:19 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-15 21:16 ` Yang Shi
2024-04-15 15:13 ` 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=bc8effda-6ff4-458d-a3ee-0d6f25cd41e0@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=shy828301@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--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