linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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



  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