From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
x86@kernel.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secretmem: optimize page_is_secretmem()
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH1X+0CMH/2yppHK@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56d8b80c-ce2c-ed86-0eda-253768d8d463@redhat.com>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > > > > due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
> > > > > memory areas".
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
> > > > >
> > > > > 27.76 +2.5 30.23 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.gup_pgd_range
> > > > > 0.00 +3.2 3.19 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_mapping
> > > > > 0.00 +3.7 3.66 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_is_secretmem
> > > > >
> > > > > Further analysis showed that the slow down happens because neither
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() nor page_mapping() are not inline and moreover,
> > > > > multiple page flags checks in page_mapping() involve calling
> > > > > compound_head() several times for the same page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make page_is_secretmem() inline and replace page_mapping() with page flag
> > > > > checks that do not imply page-to-head conversion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > @Andrew,
> > > > > The patch is vs v5.12-rc7-mmots-2021-04-15-16-28, I'd appreciate if it would
> > > > > be added as a fixup to the memfd_secret series.
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/secretmem.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > mm/secretmem.c | 12 +-----------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/secretmem.h b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > index 907a6734059c..b842b38cbeb1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > @@ -4,8 +4,32 @@
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECRETMEM
> > > > > +extern const struct address_space_operations secretmem_aops;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline bool page_is_secretmem(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Using page_mapping() is quite slow because of the actual call
> > > > > + * instruction and repeated compound_head(page) inside the
> > > > > + * page_mapping() function.
> > > > > + * We know that secretmem pages are not compound and LRU so we can
> > > > > + * save a couple of cycles here.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (PageCompound(page) || !PageLRU(page))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > I'd assume secretmem pages are rare in basically every setup out there. So
> > > > maybe throwing in a couple of likely()/unlikely() might make sense.
> > >
> > > I'd say we could do unlikely(page_is_secretmem()) at call sites. Here I can
> > > hardly estimate which pages are going to be checked.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > > > > + ((unsigned long)page->mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if open-coding page_mapping is really a good idea here -- or even
> > > > necessary after the fast path above is in place. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Well, most if the -4.2% of the performance regression kbuild reported were
> > > due to repeated compount_head(page) in page_mapping(). So the whole point
> > > of this patch is to avoid calling page_mapping().
> >
> > I would have thought the fast path "(PageCompound(page) ||
> > !PageLRU(page))" would already avoid calling page_mapping() in many cases.
>
> (and I do wonder if a generic page_mapping() optimization would make sense
> instead)
Not sure. Replacing page_mapping() with page_file_mapping() at the
call sites at fs/ and mm/ increased the defconfig image by nearly 2k
and page_file_mapping() is way simpler than page_mapping()
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 35/0 up/down: 1960/0 (1960)
Function old new delta
shrink_page_list 3414 3670 +256
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers 242 349 +107
check_move_unevictable_pages 904 987 +83
move_to_new_page 591 671 +80
shrink_active_list 912 970 +58
move_pages_to_lru 911 965 +54
migrate_pages 2500 2554 +54
shmem_swapin_page 1145 1197 +52
shmem_undo_range 1669 1719 +50
__test_set_page_writeback 620 670 +50
__set_page_dirty_buffers 187 237 +50
__pagevec_lru_add 757 807 +50
__munlock_pagevec 1155 1205 +50
__dump_page 1101 1151 +50
__cancel_dirty_page 182 232 +50
__remove_mapping 461 510 +49
rmap_walk_file 402 449 +47
isolate_movable_page 240 287 +47
test_clear_page_writeback 668 714 +46
page_cache_pipe_buf_try_steal 171 217 +46
page_endio 246 290 +44
page_file_mapping - 43 +43
__isolate_lru_page_prepare 254 297 +43
hugetlb_page_mapping_lock_write 39 81 +42
iomap_set_page_dirty 110 151 +41
clear_page_dirty_for_io 324 364 +40
wait_on_page_writeback_killable 118 157 +39
wait_on_page_writeback 105 144 +39
set_page_dirty 159 198 +39
putback_movable_page 32 71 +39
page_mkclean 172 211 +39
mark_buffer_dirty 176 215 +39
invalidate_inode_page 122 161 +39
delete_from_page_cache 139 178 +39
PageMovable 49 86 +37
isolate_migratepages_block 2843 2872 +29
Total: Before=17068648, After=17070608, chg +0.01%
> Willy can most probably give the best advise here :)
I think that's what folios are for :)
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
S huah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
x86@kernel.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secretmem: optimize page_is_secretmem()
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH1X+0CMH/2yppHK@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56d8b80c-ce2c-ed86-0eda-253768d8d463@redhat.com>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > > > > due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
> > > > > memory areas".
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
> > > > >
> > > > > 27.76 +2.5 30.23 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.gup_pgd_range
> > > > > 0.00 +3.2 3.19 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_mapping
> > > > > 0.00 +3.7 3.66 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_is_secretmem
> > > > >
> > > > > Further analysis showed that the slow down happens because neither
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() nor page_mapping() are not inline and moreover,
> > > > > multiple page flags checks in page_mapping() involve calling
> > > > > compound_head() several times for the same page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make page_is_secretmem() inline and replace page_mapping() with page flag
> > > > > checks that do not imply page-to-head conversion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > @Andrew,
> > > > > The patch is vs v5.12-rc7-mmots-2021-04-15-16-28, I'd appreciate if it would
> > > > > be added as a fixup to the memfd_secret series.
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/secretmem.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > mm/secretmem.c | 12 +-----------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/secretmem.h b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > index 907a6734059c..b842b38cbeb1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > @@ -4,8 +4,32 @@
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECRETMEM
> > > > > +extern const struct address_space_operations secretmem_aops;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline bool page_is_secretmem(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Using page_mapping() is quite slow because of the actual call
> > > > > + * instruction and repeated compound_head(page) inside the
> > > > > + * page_mapping() function.
> > > > > + * We know that secretmem pages are not compound and LRU so we can
> > > > > + * save a couple of cycles here.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (PageCompound(page) || !PageLRU(page))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > I'd assume secretmem pages are rare in basically every setup out there. So
> > > > maybe throwing in a couple of likely()/unlikely() might make sense.
> > >
> > > I'd say we could do unlikely(page_is_secretmem()) at call sites. Here I can
> > > hardly estimate which pages are going to be checked.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > > > > + ((unsigned long)page->mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if open-coding page_mapping is really a good idea here -- or even
> > > > necessary after the fast path above is in place. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Well, most if the -4.2% of the performance regression kbuild reported were
> > > due to repeated compount_head(page) in page_mapping(). So the whole point
> > > of this patch is to avoid calling page_mapping().
> >
> > I would have thought the fast path "(PageCompound(page) ||
> > !PageLRU(page))" would already avoid calling page_mapping() in many cases.
>
> (and I do wonder if a generic page_mapping() optimization would make sense
> instead)
Not sure. Replacing page_mapping() with page_file_mapping() at the
call sites at fs/ and mm/ increased the defconfig image by nearly 2k
and page_file_mapping() is way simpler than page_mapping()
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 35/0 up/down: 1960/0 (1960)
Function old new delta
shrink_page_list 3414 3670 +256
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers 242 349 +107
check_move_unevictable_pages 904 987 +83
move_to_new_page 591 671 +80
shrink_active_list 912 970 +58
move_pages_to_lru 911 965 +54
migrate_pages 2500 2554 +54
shmem_swapin_page 1145 1197 +52
shmem_undo_range 1669 1719 +50
__test_set_page_writeback 620 670 +50
__set_page_dirty_buffers 187 237 +50
__pagevec_lru_add 757 807 +50
__munlock_pagevec 1155 1205 +50
__dump_page 1101 1151 +50
__cancel_dirty_page 182 232 +50
__remove_mapping 461 510 +49
rmap_walk_file 402 449 +47
isolate_movable_page 240 287 +47
test_clear_page_writeback 668 714 +46
page_cache_pipe_buf_try_steal 171 217 +46
page_endio 246 290 +44
page_file_mapping - 43 +43
__isolate_lru_page_prepare 254 297 +43
hugetlb_page_mapping_lock_write 39 81 +42
iomap_set_page_dirty 110 151 +41
clear_page_dirty_for_io 324 364 +40
wait_on_page_writeback_killable 118 157 +39
wait_on_page_writeback 105 144 +39
set_page_dirty 159 198 +39
putback_movable_page 32 71 +39
page_mkclean 172 211 +39
mark_buffer_dirty 176 215 +39
invalidate_inode_page 122 161 +39
delete_from_page_cache 139 178 +39
PageMovable 49 86 +37
isolate_migratepages_block 2843 2872 +29
Total: Before=17068648, After=17070608, chg +0.01%
> Willy can most probably give the best advise here :)
I think that's what folios are for :)
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
x86@kernel.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secretmem: optimize page_is_secretmem()
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH1X+0CMH/2yppHK@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56d8b80c-ce2c-ed86-0eda-253768d8d463@redhat.com>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > > > > due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
> > > > > memory areas".
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
> > > > >
> > > > > 27.76 +2.5 30.23 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.gup_pgd_range
> > > > > 0.00 +3.2 3.19 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_mapping
> > > > > 0.00 +3.7 3.66 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_is_secretmem
> > > > >
> > > > > Further analysis showed that the slow down happens because neither
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() nor page_mapping() are not inline and moreover,
> > > > > multiple page flags checks in page_mapping() involve calling
> > > > > compound_head() several times for the same page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make page_is_secretmem() inline and replace page_mapping() with page flag
> > > > > checks that do not imply page-to-head conversion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > @Andrew,
> > > > > The patch is vs v5.12-rc7-mmots-2021-04-15-16-28, I'd appreciate if it would
> > > > > be added as a fixup to the memfd_secret series.
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/secretmem.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > mm/secretmem.c | 12 +-----------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/secretmem.h b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > index 907a6734059c..b842b38cbeb1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > @@ -4,8 +4,32 @@
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECRETMEM
> > > > > +extern const struct address_space_operations secretmem_aops;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline bool page_is_secretmem(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Using page_mapping() is quite slow because of the actual call
> > > > > + * instruction and repeated compound_head(page) inside the
> > > > > + * page_mapping() function.
> > > > > + * We know that secretmem pages are not compound and LRU so we can
> > > > > + * save a couple of cycles here.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (PageCompound(page) || !PageLRU(page))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > I'd assume secretmem pages are rare in basically every setup out there. So
> > > > maybe throwing in a couple of likely()/unlikely() might make sense.
> > >
> > > I'd say we could do unlikely(page_is_secretmem()) at call sites. Here I can
> > > hardly estimate which pages are going to be checked.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > > > > + ((unsigned long)page->mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if open-coding page_mapping is really a good idea here -- or even
> > > > necessary after the fast path above is in place. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Well, most if the -4.2% of the performance regression kbuild reported were
> > > due to repeated compount_head(page) in page_mapping(). So the whole point
> > > of this patch is to avoid calling page_mapping().
> >
> > I would have thought the fast path "(PageCompound(page) ||
> > !PageLRU(page))" would already avoid calling page_mapping() in many cases.
>
> (and I do wonder if a generic page_mapping() optimization would make sense
> instead)
Not sure. Replacing page_mapping() with page_file_mapping() at the
call sites at fs/ and mm/ increased the defconfig image by nearly 2k
and page_file_mapping() is way simpler than page_mapping()
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 35/0 up/down: 1960/0 (1960)
Function old new delta
shrink_page_list 3414 3670 +256
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers 242 349 +107
check_move_unevictable_pages 904 987 +83
move_to_new_page 591 671 +80
shrink_active_list 912 970 +58
move_pages_to_lru 911 965 +54
migrate_pages 2500 2554 +54
shmem_swapin_page 1145 1197 +52
shmem_undo_range 1669 1719 +50
__test_set_page_writeback 620 670 +50
__set_page_dirty_buffers 187 237 +50
__pagevec_lru_add 757 807 +50
__munlock_pagevec 1155 1205 +50
__dump_page 1101 1151 +50
__cancel_dirty_page 182 232 +50
__remove_mapping 461 510 +49
rmap_walk_file 402 449 +47
isolate_movable_page 240 287 +47
test_clear_page_writeback 668 714 +46
page_cache_pipe_buf_try_steal 171 217 +46
page_endio 246 290 +44
page_file_mapping - 43 +43
__isolate_lru_page_prepare 254 297 +43
hugetlb_page_mapping_lock_write 39 81 +42
iomap_set_page_dirty 110 151 +41
clear_page_dirty_for_io 324 364 +40
wait_on_page_writeback_killable 118 157 +39
wait_on_page_writeback 105 144 +39
set_page_dirty 159 198 +39
putback_movable_page 32 71 +39
page_mkclean 172 211 +39
mark_buffer_dirty 176 215 +39
invalidate_inode_page 122 161 +39
delete_from_page_cache 139 178 +39
PageMovable 49 86 +37
isolate_migratepages_block 2843 2872 +29
Total: Before=17068648, After=17070608, chg +0.01%
> Willy can most probably give the best advise here :)
I think that's what folios are for :)
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
x86@kernel.org, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] secretmem: optimize page_is_secretmem()
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:14:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YH1X+0CMH/2yppHK@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56d8b80c-ce2c-ed86-0eda-253768d8d463@redhat.com>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > > > > due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
> > > > > memory areas".
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
> > > > >
> > > > > 27.76 +2.5 30.23 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.gup_pgd_range
> > > > > 0.00 +3.2 3.19 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_mapping
> > > > > 0.00 +3.7 3.66 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.page_is_secretmem
> > > > >
> > > > > Further analysis showed that the slow down happens because neither
> > > > > page_is_secretmem() nor page_mapping() are not inline and moreover,
> > > > > multiple page flags checks in page_mapping() involve calling
> > > > > compound_head() several times for the same page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make page_is_secretmem() inline and replace page_mapping() with page flag
> > > > > checks that do not imply page-to-head conversion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > @Andrew,
> > > > > The patch is vs v5.12-rc7-mmots-2021-04-15-16-28, I'd appreciate if it would
> > > > > be added as a fixup to the memfd_secret series.
> > > > >
> > > > > include/linux/secretmem.h | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > > mm/secretmem.c | 12 +-----------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/secretmem.h b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > index 907a6734059c..b842b38cbeb1 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/secretmem.h
> > > > > @@ -4,8 +4,32 @@
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECRETMEM
> > > > > +extern const struct address_space_operations secretmem_aops;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static inline bool page_is_secretmem(struct page *page)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Using page_mapping() is quite slow because of the actual call
> > > > > + * instruction and repeated compound_head(page) inside the
> > > > > + * page_mapping() function.
> > > > > + * We know that secretmem pages are not compound and LRU so we can
> > > > > + * save a couple of cycles here.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (PageCompound(page) || !PageLRU(page))
> > > > > + return false;
> > > >
> > > > I'd assume secretmem pages are rare in basically every setup out there. So
> > > > maybe throwing in a couple of likely()/unlikely() might make sense.
> > >
> > > I'd say we could do unlikely(page_is_secretmem()) at call sites. Here I can
> > > hardly estimate which pages are going to be checked.
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mapping = (struct address_space *)
> > > > > + ((unsigned long)page->mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if open-coding page_mapping is really a good idea here -- or even
> > > > necessary after the fast path above is in place. Anyhow, just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > Well, most if the -4.2% of the performance regression kbuild reported were
> > > due to repeated compount_head(page) in page_mapping(). So the whole point
> > > of this patch is to avoid calling page_mapping().
> >
> > I would have thought the fast path "(PageCompound(page) ||
> > !PageLRU(page))" would already avoid calling page_mapping() in many cases.
>
> (and I do wonder if a generic page_mapping() optimization would make sense
> instead)
Not sure. Replacing page_mapping() with page_file_mapping() at the
call sites at fs/ and mm/ increased the defconfig image by nearly 2k
and page_file_mapping() is way simpler than page_mapping()
add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 35/0 up/down: 1960/0 (1960)
Function old new delta
shrink_page_list 3414 3670 +256
__set_page_dirty_nobuffers 242 349 +107
check_move_unevictable_pages 904 987 +83
move_to_new_page 591 671 +80
shrink_active_list 912 970 +58
move_pages_to_lru 911 965 +54
migrate_pages 2500 2554 +54
shmem_swapin_page 1145 1197 +52
shmem_undo_range 1669 1719 +50
__test_set_page_writeback 620 670 +50
__set_page_dirty_buffers 187 237 +50
__pagevec_lru_add 757 807 +50
__munlock_pagevec 1155 1205 +50
__dump_page 1101 1151 +50
__cancel_dirty_page 182 232 +50
__remove_mapping 461 510 +49
rmap_walk_file 402 449 +47
isolate_movable_page 240 287 +47
test_clear_page_writeback 668 714 +46
page_cache_pipe_buf_try_steal 171 217 +46
page_endio 246 290 +44
page_file_mapping - 43 +43
__isolate_lru_page_prepare 254 297 +43
hugetlb_page_mapping_lock_write 39 81 +42
iomap_set_page_dirty 110 151 +41
clear_page_dirty_for_io 324 364 +40
wait_on_page_writeback_killable 118 157 +39
wait_on_page_writeback 105 144 +39
set_page_dirty 159 198 +39
putback_movable_page 32 71 +39
page_mkclean 172 211 +39
mark_buffer_dirty 176 215 +39
invalidate_inode_page 122 161 +39
delete_from_page_cache 139 178 +39
PageMovable 49 86 +37
isolate_migratepages_block 2843 2872 +29
Total: Before=17068648, After=17070608, chg +0.01%
> Willy can most probably give the best advise here :)
I think that's what folios are for :)
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-19 10:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-19 8:42 [PATCH] secretmem: optimize page_is_secretmem() Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 8:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 8:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 8:42 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 9:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 9:36 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 9:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:38 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 9:40 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 10:14 ` Mike Rapoport [this message]
2021-04-19 10:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 10:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 10:14 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 10:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 10:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 10:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 10:21 ` David Hildenbrand
2021-04-19 11:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:43 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:23 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 11:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 11:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 11:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 11:56 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 12:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 12:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 12:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 12:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-04-19 18:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 18:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 18:24 ` Mike Rapoport
2021-04-19 18:24 ` Mike Rapoport
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=YH1X+0CMH/2yppHK@kernel.org \
--to=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=elena.reshetova@intel.com \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mjg59@srcf.ucam.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yury.norov@gmail.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.