Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

Jason,

On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over
> > a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched.  That shouldn't be a
> > problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when
> > page is commonly present, fast-gup will already succeed, while when the
> > page is indeed missing and require a follow up page fault, the slow gup
> > degrade will probably buried in the fault paths anyway.  It also explains
> > why slow gup for THP used to be very slow before 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup:
> > accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"") lands, the latter not part of
> > a performance analysis but a side benefit.  If the performance will be a
> > concern, we can consider handle CONT_PTE in follow_page().
> 
> I think this is probably fine for the moment, at least for this
> series, as CONT_PTE is still very new.
> 
> But it will need to be optimized. "slow" GUP is the only GUP that is
> used by FOLL_LONGTERM and it still needs to be optimized because you
> can't assume a FOLL_LONGTERM user will be hitting the really slow
> fault path. There are enough important cases where it is just reading
> already populted page tables, and these days, often with large folios.

Ah, I thought FOLL_LONGTERM should work in most cases for fast-gup,
especially for hugetlb, but maybe I missed something?  I do see that devmap
skips fast-gup for LONGTERM, we also have that writeback issue but none of
those that I can find applies to hugetlb.  This might be a problem indeed
if we have hugetlb cont_pte pages that will constantly fallback to slow
gup.

OTOH, I also agree with you that such batching would be nice to have for
slow-gup, likely devmap or many fs (exclude shmem/hugetlb) file mappings
can at least benefit from it due to above.  But then that'll be a more
generic issue to solve, IOW, we still don't do that for !hugetlb cont_pte
large folios, before or after this series.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>

Thanks!

-- 
Peter Xu