From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 16:16:26 +0100 Subject: Huge page(contiguous bit) slow down In-Reply-To: <20180918145832.h24u5tbsqksvmrtq@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> References: <8898674D84E3B24BA3A2D289B872026A69FE8F27@G01JPEXMBKW03> <20180918113300.GC16498@arm.com> <20180918145832.h24u5tbsqksvmrtq@armageddon.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <20180918151625.GG16498@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 03:58:32PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 12:33:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 03:02:17AM +0000, Zhang, Lei wrote: > > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c > > > @@ -332,6 +332,9 @@ int huge_ptep_set_access_flags(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > if (!pte_cont(pte)) > > > return ptep_set_access_flags(vma, addr, ptep, pte, dirty); > > > > > > + if(pte_same(pte, READ_ONCE(*ptep))) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > > This broadly seems to follow the non-contiguous code, but I wonder if we > > can then drop the subsequent pte_same() check on this path and always return > > 1 when we actually update the entries? > > I don't remember why we went for first clearing and then checking > pte_same() (maybe Steve knows) but I think we can leave pte_same() > outside the get_clear_flush()/set_pte_at() block. This code is executed > with the mmap_sem taken, so there shouldn't be any race on the > individual ptes. I suspect it's just to avoid the additional load of the page-table entry, since we still have to use get_clear_flush() even with this change. One thing I don't really grok is the interaction between the contiguous hint and HW_AFDBM. Is it possible for us to be e.g. halfway through the set_pte_at() loop and then for the hardware to perform atomic PTE updates for entries later in the loop? If so, we've got a race and need to use cmpxchg() like we do for the non-contiguous code. Will