From: Leonardo Bras <leo.bras@arm.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leo.bras@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Optimize S2 page splitting
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 16:25:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ak5r73cHx36SP0-O@LeoBrasDK> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260708134101.2514759-1-leo.bras@arm.com>
On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 02:40:56PM +0100, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> While playing with dirty-bit tracking, I decided to take a look on how page
> splitting works. Found out all entries are walked, even though we can infer,
> for instance that:
> - If a level-3 entry is walked, it means the parent level-2 entry is split
> - If a split just succeeded in an table entry, it means all children nodes
> are already split
>
> This patches' idea is to introduce new walking flags to skip pagetable
> levels 0-3.
>
> The idea of skipping child nodes was also tested, but it was marginally
> slower than just skipping levels, so it was discarted.
>
> Optimization measured on two scenarios involving eager-splitting on a
> VM with 32 memslot of 2GB (total 64GB), and vcpu per slot:
> - Scenario 1: No manual protect, whole memslot split at dirty-track enable
> (KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION2 ioctl with KVM_MEM_LOG_DIRTY_PAGES)
> - Split happens only once, whole region
> - Evalutes improved batch performance of splitting
> - Scenario 2: Manual protect, split happens during every dirty-bit clean
> (KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG ioctl), average for 2 iterations.
> - Split called multiple times, for smaller 64-page sections.
> - Evaluate improved performance for multiple calls
>
> Scenario 1, improvement on dirty-track enable ioctl for the memslot:
> - Memory was already split (4k pages): -43.18% runtime (stdev 3.87%)
> - THP backed memory: -25.77% runtime (stdev 1.01%)
> - 64x1GB hugetlb memory: -25.62% runtime (stdev 1.09%)
>
> Scenario 2, improvement on dirty-log clean ioctl for the memslot:
> - Memory was already split (4k pages): -39.88% runtime (stdev 2.71%)
> - THP backed memory: -25.18% runtime (stdev 0.32%)
> - 64x1GB hugetlb memory: -49.17% runtime (stdev 1.86%)
>
> For collecting above numbers, the following script was ran in both vanilla
> and patched kernels, with kernel parameter 'default_hugepagesz=1G', on an
> TX2 with 128GB RAM.
>
> --- dirty_test.sh
> #!/bin/bash
> filename=$(uname -r |cut -d'-' -f 4-)
>
> run_test(){
> base_test="./dirty_log_perf_test -b 2G -v 32 -m 6 -m 8"
>
> # Manual cleaning disable
> ${base_test} -g
> ${base_test} -g -s anonymous_thp
> echo 64 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> ${base_test} -g -s shared_hugetlb
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
>
> # Manual cleaning enable
> ${base_test}
> ${base_test} -s anonymous_thp
> echo 64 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> ${base_test} -s shared_hugetlb
> echo 0 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> }
>
> run_test 2>&1 | tee ${filename}
> ---
>
> Above dirty_log_perf_test command is the standard kvm selftest found in the
> kernel tree. It tested the following guest modes:
> Testing guest mode: PA-bits:40, VA-bits:48, 4K pages
> Testing guest mode: PA-bits:40, VA-bits:48, 64K pages
> (Modes with PA-bits:36 were discarted in this version, given the amount
> of RAM being used for testing, and the similarity of previous results)
>
> Performance numbers from above modes were used to calculate average and
> stdev showed in the optimization results.
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Rebased on top of v7.2-rc1
> - Improved testing, added more memory, re-tested
> - Now: 32 vcpus @ total of 64G
> - Before: 1cpu @ 16G
v2 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260618131447.764085-1-leo.bras@arm.com/
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Fixed inverted flag verification priority (Sashiko)
> - Fixed incorrectly skipping POST call if level was skipped (Sashiko), and to that
> - New pre-patch that changes goto-out -> return to avoid re-testing walk_continue
> v1 Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260610202112.2695205-2-leo.bras@arm.com/
>
> Changes since RFC:
> - Changed approach from return value to walk flags (Will Deacon)
> - Discarted skip_child approach (Oliver Upton)
> - Measured in real hardware, and from userspace perspective (Marc Zyngier)
> - Better explanation of what and how numbers were collected
> RFC Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260515195904.2466381-1-leo.bras@arm.com/
>
> Thanks!
> Leo
>
>
> Leonardo Bras (3):
> KVM: arm64: Avoid re-testing walk_continue
> KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_SKIP_LEVEL* walk flags
> KVM: arm64: Make stage2_split_walker() skip unnecessary walks
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: dc59e4fea9d83f03bad6bddf3fa2e52491777482
> --
> 2.55.0
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-08 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-08 13:40 [PATCH v3 0/3] Optimize S2 page splitting Leonardo Bras
2026-07-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] KVM: arm64: Avoid re-testing walk_continue Leonardo Bras
2026-07-08 16:41 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-08 17:00 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_SKIP_LEVEL* walk flags Leonardo Bras
2026-07-08 17:17 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-09 14:25 ` Leonardo Bras
2026-07-11 5:53 ` Wei-Lin Chang
2026-07-08 13:40 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] KVM: arm64: Make stage2_split_walker() skip unnecessary walks Leonardo Bras
2026-07-08 15:25 ` Leonardo Bras [this message]
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=ak5r73cHx36SP0-O@LeoBrasDK \
--to=leo.bras@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=rananta@google.com \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=tabba@google.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.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