Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Optimize mprotect() for large folios

[Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>]

On 30/06/25 4:15 pm, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 30/06/2025 04:33, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 30/06/25 4:35 am, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:04:31 +0530 Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This patchset optimizes the mprotect() system call for large folios
>>>> by PTE-batching. No issues were observed with mm-selftests, build
>>>> tested on x86_64.
>>> um what.  Seems to claim that "selftests still compiles after I messed
>>> with stuff", which isn't very impressive ;)  Please clarify?
>> Sorry I mean to say that the mm-selftests pass.
> I think you're saying you both compiled and ran the mm selftests for arm64. And
> additionally you compiled for x86_64? (Just trying to help clarify).

Yes, ran mm-selftests on arm64, and build-tested the patches for x86.

>
>>>> We use the following test cases to measure performance, mprotect()'ing
>>>> the mapped memory to read-only then read-write 40 times:
>>>>
>>>> Test case 1: Mapping 1G of memory, touching it to get PMD-THPs, then
>>>> pte-mapping those THPs
>>>> Test case 2: Mapping 1G of memory with 64K mTHPs
>>>> Test case 3: Mapping 1G of memory with 4K pages
>>>>
>>>> Average execution time on arm64, Apple M3:
>>>> Before the patchset:
>>>> T1: 7.9 seconds   T2: 7.9 seconds   T3: 4.2 seconds
>>>>
>>>> After the patchset:
>>>> T1: 2.1 seconds   T2: 2.2 seconds   T3: 4.3 seconds
>>> Well that's tasty.
>>>
>>>> Observing T1/T2 and T3 before the patchset, we also remove the regression
>>>> introduced by ptep_get() on a contpte block. And, for large folios we get
>>>> an almost 74% performance improvement, albeit the trade-off being a slight
>>>> degradation in the small folio case.
>>>>
>