Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mm: introduce pte_move_swp_offset() helper which can move offset bidirectionally

[Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 8:06 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 04.05.24 01:40, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 5:41 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/05/2024 01:50, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> >>>
> >>> There could arise a necessity to obtain the first pte_t from a swap
> >>> pte_t located in the middle. For instance, this may occur within the
> >>> context of do_swap_page(), where a page fault can potentially occur in
> >>> any PTE of a large folio. To address this, the following patch introduces
> >>> pte_move_swp_offset(), a function capable of bidirectional movement by
> >>> a specified delta argument. Consequently, pte_increment_swp_offset()
> >>
> >> You mean pte_next_swp_offset()?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> >>
> >>> will directly invoke it with delta = 1.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   mm/internal.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> >>> index c5552d35d995..cfe4aed66a5c 100644
> >>> --- a/mm/internal.h
> >>> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> >>> @@ -211,18 +211,21 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>>   /**
> >>> - * pte_next_swp_offset - Increment the swap entry offset field of a swap pte.
> >>> + * pte_move_swp_offset - Move the swap entry offset field of a swap pte
> >>> + *    forward or backward by delta
> >>>    * @pte: The initial pte state; is_swap_pte(pte) must be true and
> >>>    *    non_swap_entry() must be false.
> >>> + * @delta: The direction and the offset we are moving; forward if delta
> >>> + *    is positive; backward if delta is negative
> >>>    *
> >>> - * Increments the swap offset, while maintaining all other fields, including
> >>> + * Moves the swap offset, while maintaining all other fields, including
> >>>    * swap type, and any swp pte bits. The resulting pte is returned.
> >>>    */
> >>> -static inline pte_t pte_next_swp_offset(pte_t pte)
> >>> +static inline pte_t pte_move_swp_offset(pte_t pte, long delta)
> >>
> >> We have equivalent functions for pfn:
> >>
> >>    pte_next_pfn()
> >>    pte_advance_pfn()
> >>
> >> Although the latter takes an unsigned long and only moves forward currently. I
> >> wonder if it makes sense to have their naming and semantics match? i.e. change
> >> pte_advance_pfn() to pte_move_pfn() and let it move backwards too.
> >>
> >> I guess we don't have a need for that and it adds more churn.
> >
> > we might have a need in the below case.
> > A forks B, then A and B share large folios. B unmap/exit, then large
> > folios of process
> > A become single-mapped.
> > Right now, while writing A's folios, we are CoWing A's large folios
> > into many small
> > folios. I believe we can reuse the entire large folios instead of doing nr_pages
> > CoW and page faults.
> > In this case, we might want to get the first PTE from vmf->pte.
>
> Once we have COW reuse for large folios in place (I think you know that
> I am working on that), it might make sense to "COW-reuse around",

TBH, I don't know if you are working on that. please Cc me next time :-)

> meaning we look if some neighboring PTEs map the same large folio and
> map them writable as well. But if it's really worth it, increasing page
> fault latency, is to be decided separately.

On the other hand, we eliminate latency for the remaining nr_pages - 1 PTEs.
Perhaps we can discover a more cost-effective method to signify that a large
folio is probably singly mapped? and only call "multi-PTEs" reuse while that
condition is true in PF and avoid increasing latency always?

>
>
> >
> > Another case, might be
> > A forks B, and we write either A or B, we might CoW an entire large
> > folios instead
> > CoWing nr_pages small folios.
> >
> > case 1 seems more useful, I might have a go after some days. then we might
> > see pte_move_pfn().
> pte_move_pfn() does sound odd to me. It might not be required to
> implement the optimization described above. (it's easier to simply read
> another PTE, check if it maps the same large folio, and to batch from there)
>

It appears that your proposal suggests potential reusability as follows: if we
have a large folio containing 16 PTEs, you might consider reusing only 4 by
examining PTEs "around" but not necessarily all 16 PTEs. please correct me
if my understanding is wrong.

Initially, my idea was to obtain the first PTE using pte_move_pfn() and then
utilize folio_pte_batch() with the first PTE as arguments to ensure consistency
in nr_pages, thus enabling complete reuse of the whole folio.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb

Thanks
Barry