[REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Chengfeng Lin]

Hi,

I have a refreshed bare-metal result for the shared-dirty mprotect()
slowdown I reported earlier from QEMU/lab testing.

The reproducer is intentionally narrow:

  - MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS mapping
  - 64 MiB range, write-prefaulted before timing
  - state check: 4 KiB base pages, no THP backing
  - repeated full-range mprotect(PROT_READ)
  - restore with mprotect(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)
  - write-touch after each protect/restore cycle

So this is not a generic mprotect() regression claim.  The scope is the
shared-dirty base-page PTE permission-change path.

The bare-metal machine is an Intel Core i7-14700 system.  The workload is
single-threaded and pinned to one logical CPU with `taskset -c 2`.  The primary
metric is `iteration_ns_per_page`, lower is better.  It is the wall-clock time
for one full protect/restore/write-touch iteration, divided by the number of
4 KiB pages in the range.  Each benchmark step used 9 external rounds, 1000
iterations, and 10 warmup iterations.

First, the v6.12 -> v6.19 result still reproduces on bare metal:

  kernel                         iteration_ns_per_page
  v6.12.77                       26
  v6.19.9                        37

I then narrowed the release window with 3 interleaved boot/run steps per
kernel:

  kernel                         values          mean
  v6.16                          25 25 25        25.000
  v6.17                          37 37 37        37.000
  v6.18                          38 38 38        38.000
  v6.18.19                       38 38 38        38.000
  v6.19.9                        37 36 37        36.667

I also checked later context with the same standalone command:

  kernel                         values          mean
  v7.0.9                         36 36 36        36.000
  v6.19.9 + Pedro v3 patch-only  39 39 39        39.000
  v7.1.0-rc3 mm-unstable/Pedro   39 39 39        39.000

I do not treat the mm-unstable result as a clean release-kernel comparison.
It is only a follow-up check, and in this workload it did not improve the
standalone result.

All of these runs reported `expected_match_ratio=100` and
`unexpected_results=0`.  The state check in the standalone output stays in the
same shape: 4 KiB pages, no THP.

This puts the slowdown in the v6.16 -> v6.17 release window.

As an attribution check, I also built a v6.17 probe kernel that only changes
the present-PTE path in `mm/mprotect.c::change_pte_range()` for this workload
back to a single-PTE start/commit/flush shape.  That is not an upstream patch
and not a clean release-kernel comparison; it is only a hot-path probe.

The result was:

  kernel                         values          mean
  v6.16                          25 25 25        25.000
  v6.17                          37 37 37        37.000
  v6.17 single-PTE probe         25 25 25        25.000

So the targeted probe brings v6.17 back to the v6.16 range for this workload.
That points at the v6.17 PTE-batching shape in `change_pte_range()` as the
main cost for this shared-dirty 4 KiB base-page case.

I do not want to overstate the attribution.  I tried reversing the official
`cac1db8c3aad ("mm: optimize mprotect() by PTE batching")` patch onto my
linux-6.17 tree, but it did not apply cleanly.  That means this is not an
exact revert result.  I can only say that the slowdown appears in the
v6.16 -> v6.17 window, and that this focused probe brings the v6.17 result
back to the v6.16 range.

Evidence bundle:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle

Standalone reproducer:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/reproducer

For each installed kernel, the standalone reproducer was run as:

  taskset -c 2 env MAPPING_MB=64 ITERATIONS=1000 WARMUP=10 \
    EXTERNAL_ROUNDS=9 ./run_mprotect_shared_dirty_reproducer.sh

For the release-window check, a small systemd/GRUB queue booted each target
kernel before running the same command.

Bare-metal summaries and raw run logs:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal

Release-window narrowing:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260623-narrow-6.16-6.19-3rounds

v6.17 single-PTE probe:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260624-6.17-singlepte-probe

Probe patch used for that attribution run:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/blob/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260624-6.17-singlepte-probe/0001-mm-mprotect-probe-6.17-single-pte-hotpath.patch

#regzbot introduced: v6.16..v6.17

Does this scope look useful to investigate further?  If yes, I can try a more
exact commit-level check or test a patch you think is the right direction.

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Chengfeng Lin]

Hi,

I wanted to add one small follow-up to make the scope clearer.

The original reproducer repeatedly does:

  mprotect(PROT_READ)
  mprotect(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)
  write-touch

I also checked whether the signal only comes from that repeated
protect/restore loop.  In the follow-up test, each timed iteration creates a
fresh 64 MiB shared-dirty mapping, checks that it is still 4 KiB/no THP, and
then times exactly one full-range:

  mprotect(PROT_READ)

This is still the same narrow shared-dirty base-page workload, not a separate
regression claim.

I also checked a MADV_HUGEPAGE control on the current kernel.  With the default
shmem THP policy, the shared mapping did not actually form THP.  After
temporarily switching shmem THP to `advise`, the same shared mapping did form
THP and the single mprotect(PROT_READ) cost was much lower.  So the numbers
below are intentionally for the 4 KiB base-page shape.

The bare-metal result is:

  kernel                         single_protect_ns_per_page
  v6.16                          8  8  8       mean 8.000
  v6.17                          14 14 14      mean 14.000
  v7.1                           18 15 18      mean 17.000

All steps reported `expected_match_ratio=100` and `unexpected_results=0`.

So a single `mprotect(PROT_READ)` on the prepared shared-dirty range already
shows the v6.16 -> v6.17 slowdown.  The earlier toggle result is therefore not
only measuring steady-state restore/write-touch effects.

Follow-up evidence:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-regression-evidence/tree/8a19614b08d8d2a4c2698c1cfac5a747f12aa021/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260630-single-protect-followup

Updated evidence root:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-regression-evidence/tree/8a19614b08d8d2a4c2698c1cfac5a747f12aa021/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle

If this scope looks useful, I can provide more runs or narrower measurements
around the v6.16..v6.17 window.

Thanks,
Chengfeng


> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Chengfeng Lin" <chengfenglin@stu.xmu.edu.cn>
> 发送时间:2026-06-25 01:28:04 (星期四)
> 收件人: "Pedro Falcato" <pfalcato@suse.de>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org
> 抄送: "Liam R. Howlett" <liam@infradead.org>, "Lorenzo Stoakes" <ljs@kernel.org>, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@kernel.org>, "Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev
> 主题: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a refreshed bare-metal result for the shared-dirty mprotect()
> slowdown I reported earlier from QEMU/lab testing.
> 
> The reproducer is intentionally narrow:
> 
>   - MAP_SHARED | MAP_ANONYMOUS mapping
>   - 64 MiB range, write-prefaulted before timing
>   - state check: 4 KiB base pages, no THP backing
>   - repeated full-range mprotect(PROT_READ)
>   - restore with mprotect(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE)
>   - write-touch after each protect/restore cycle
> 
> So this is not a generic mprotect() regression claim.  The scope is the
> shared-dirty base-page PTE permission-change path.
> 
> The bare-metal machine is an Intel Core i7-14700 system.  The workload is
> single-threaded and pinned to one logical CPU with `taskset -c 2`.  The primary
> metric is `iteration_ns_per_page`, lower is better.  It is the wall-clock time
> for one full protect/restore/write-touch iteration, divided by the number of
> 4 KiB pages in the range.  Each benchmark step used 9 external rounds, 1000
> iterations, and 10 warmup iterations.
> 
> First, the v6.12 -> v6.19 result still reproduces on bare metal:
> 
>   kernel                         iteration_ns_per_page
>   v6.12.77                       26
>   v6.19.9                        37
> 
> I then narrowed the release window with 3 interleaved boot/run steps per
> kernel:
> 
>   kernel                         values          mean
>   v6.16                          25 25 25        25.000
>   v6.17                          37 37 37        37.000
>   v6.18                          38 38 38        38.000
>   v6.18.19                       38 38 38        38.000
>   v6.19.9                        37 36 37        36.667
> 
> I also checked later context with the same standalone command:
> 
>   kernel                         values          mean
>   v7.0.9                         36 36 36        36.000
>   v6.19.9 + Pedro v3 patch-only  39 39 39        39.000
>   v7.1.0-rc3 mm-unstable/Pedro   39 39 39        39.000
> 
> I do not treat the mm-unstable result as a clean release-kernel comparison.
> It is only a follow-up check, and in this workload it did not improve the
> standalone result.
> 
> All of these runs reported `expected_match_ratio=100` and
> `unexpected_results=0`.  The state check in the standalone output stays in the
> same shape: 4 KiB pages, no THP.
> 
> This puts the slowdown in the v6.16 -> v6.17 release window.
> 
> As an attribution check, I also built a v6.17 probe kernel that only changes
> the present-PTE path in `mm/mprotect.c::change_pte_range()` for this workload
> back to a single-PTE start/commit/flush shape.  That is not an upstream patch
> and not a clean release-kernel comparison; it is only a hot-path probe.
> 
> The result was:
> 
>   kernel                         values          mean
>   v6.16                          25 25 25        25.000
>   v6.17                          37 37 37        37.000
>   v6.17 single-PTE probe         25 25 25        25.000
> 
> So the targeted probe brings v6.17 back to the v6.16 range for this workload.
> That points at the v6.17 PTE-batching shape in `change_pte_range()` as the
> main cost for this shared-dirty 4 KiB base-page case.
> 
> I do not want to overstate the attribution.  I tried reversing the official
> `cac1db8c3aad ("mm: optimize mprotect() by PTE batching")` patch onto my
> linux-6.17 tree, but it did not apply cleanly.  That means this is not an
> exact revert result.  I can only say that the slowdown appears in the
> v6.16 -> v6.17 window, and that this focused probe brings the v6.17 result
> back to the v6.16 range.
> 
> Evidence bundle:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle
> 
> Standalone reproducer:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/reproducer
> 
> For each installed kernel, the standalone reproducer was run as:
> 
>   taskset -c 2 env MAPPING_MB=64 ITERATIONS=1000 WARMUP=10 \
>     EXTERNAL_ROUNDS=9 ./run_mprotect_shared_dirty_reproducer.sh
> 
> For the release-window check, a small systemd/GRUB queue booted each target
> kernel before running the same command.
> 
> Bare-metal summaries and raw run logs:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal
> 
> Release-window narrowing:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260623-narrow-6.16-6.19-3rounds
> 
> v6.17 single-PTE probe:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/tree/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260624-6.17-singlepte-probe
> 
> Probe patch used for that attribution run:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence/blob/acd7fef0e0276ac361971b0960e6611811edf5b3/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260624-6.17-singlepte-probe/0001-mm-mprotect-probe-6.17-single-pte-hotpath.patch
> 
> #regzbot introduced: v6.16..v6.17
> 
> Does this scope look useful to investigate further?  If yes, I can try a more
> exact commit-level check or test a patch you think is the right direction.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chengfeng
> 

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Chengfeng Lin]

Hi,

Just a gentle ping, with results from an exact commit-level check.

I tested cac1db8c3aad ("mm: optimize mprotect() by PTE batching")
against its direct parent 45199f715b74. Each point used a fresh boot:

  45199f715b74 parent A -> cac1db8c3aad child ->
  45199f715b74 parent B

I used the same narrow 64 MiB shared-dirty 4 KiB base-page toggle
workload from the report. Each point had 3 warm-up processes and
15 measured processes. Each measured process ran 1,000 iterations.
The primary result, iteration_ns_per_page (lower is better), was:

  point       mean ns/page    SD
  parent A          38.133  0.743
  child             53.533  0.516
  parent B          38.467  0.640

The parent midpoint was 38.300 ns/page. The child was 39.77% slower,
while parent B differed from parent A by only 0.87%. Dropping the first
measured process from every point left a 39.53% child delta.

All 45 measured processes passed the semantic checks and used 4 KiB
pages with no THP. The protect and restore components each increased
from 13 ns/page in the parent controls to 20 ns/page in the child.
The post-touch component stayed close to 12 ns/page.

The exact commit changes only mm/mprotect.c. Both kernels were built from
the exact commits with the same normalized config, GCC 15.2.0, and Kbuild
metadata. Every point used the same CPU settings and runtime preempt=none.

For this narrow workload, the exact parent/child result identifies
cac1db8c3aad as the source of the measured slowdown. I am not claiming
a generic mprotect() or application-level regression.

Evidence:

  https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-regression-evidence/tree/a3ae7bf1a50e4d88b572c6005a037679530c9b1f/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260721-cac1db8c3aad-exact-ab

#regzbot introduced: cac1db8c3aad97d6ffb56ced8868d6cbbbd2bfbe

If useful, I can still collect a perf profile of the child around
change_pte_range().

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Dev Jain]

On 21/07/26 6:09 pm, Chengfeng Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just a gentle ping, with results from an exact commit-level check.
> 
> I tested cac1db8c3aad ("mm: optimize mprotect() by PTE batching")
> against its direct parent 45199f715b74. Each point used a fresh boot:
> 
>   45199f715b74 parent A -> cac1db8c3aad child ->
>   45199f715b74 parent B
> 
> I used the same narrow 64 MiB shared-dirty 4 KiB base-page toggle
> workload from the report. Each point had 3 warm-up processes and
> 15 measured processes. Each measured process ran 1,000 iterations.
> The primary result, iteration_ns_per_page (lower is better), was:
> 
>   point       mean ns/page    SD
>   parent A          38.133  0.743
>   child             53.533  0.516
>   parent B          38.467  0.640
> 
> The parent midpoint was 38.300 ns/page. The child was 39.77% slower,
> while parent B differed from parent A by only 0.87%. Dropping the first
> measured process from every point left a 39.53% child delta.
> 
> All 45 measured processes passed the semantic checks and used 4 KiB
> pages with no THP. The protect and restore components each increased
> from 13 ns/page in the parent controls to 20 ns/page in the child.
> The post-touch component stayed close to 12 ns/page.
> 
> The exact commit changes only mm/mprotect.c. Both kernels were built from
> the exact commits with the same normalized config, GCC 15.2.0, and Kbuild
> metadata. Every point used the same CPU settings and runtime preempt=none.
> 
> For this narrow workload, the exact parent/child result identifies
> cac1db8c3aad as the source of the measured slowdown. I am not claiming
> a generic mprotect() or application-level regression.
> 
> Evidence:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-regression-evidence/tree/a3ae7bf1a50e4d88b572c6005a037679530c9b1f/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/bare-metal/20260721-cac1db8c3aad-exact-ab
> 
> #regzbot introduced: cac1db8c3aad97d6ffb56ced8868d6cbbbd2bfbe
> 
> If useful, I can still collect a perf profile of the child around
> change_pte_range().
> 

Sorry it is difficult for me to parse your report. So I didn't understand whether
Pedro's patches helped you or not?


> Thanks,
> Chengfeng

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Chengfeng Lin]

Hi,

Sorry that my earlier message was difficult to follow.

The previous exact parent/child test showed that cac1db8c3aad slowed this
workload by 39.77%. To answer your question directly: no. In a separate
matched v7.1.3 patch-on/patch-off test, Pedro's full v3 series was 6.20%
slower than the no-v3 controls, so it did not reduce the slowdown in this
workload.

I also checked for an update. The latest public revision I found is still v3,
and it is already included in Linux v7.1.3.

To isolate the series, I used the same v7.1.3 source for both kernels. The
no-v3 kernel replaces only mm/mprotect.c with the exact pre-series file at
19999e479c2a. The full-v3 kernel is unmodified v7.1.3 and matches the series
tip at 89e613bc0b2d. The normalized configs and all other build conditions
were the same.

I used a fresh boot for every point:

  point       mean ns/page
  no-v3 A          55.333
  full v3          58.200
  no-v3 B          54.267

The no-v3 midpoint was 54.800 ns/page. Full v3 was 6.20% slower than that
midpoint. The two controls drifted by -1.93%. Dropping the first measured run
from every point left the v3 delta at +6.18%.

This was the same narrow standalone workload: a 64 MiB shared anonymous
mapping, dirty 4 KiB pages, and repeated full-range read-only, restore, and
write-touch cycles. Each point had 3 warm-up processes and 15 measured
processes; each measured process ran 1,000 cycles. The benchmark was pinned to
one P-core with Turbo disabled and preempt=none.

All 45 measured processes passed the returned-value checks and stayed on 4 KiB
pages with no THP. The protect and restore phases were each about 23 ns/page
with v3 and 21 ns/page without v3. The later write-touch phase was unchanged.

So, for this specific microbenchmark on this machine, Pedro v3 did not reduce
the slowdown. It produced a small slowdown instead. I am not making a claim
about other mprotect patterns or application-level performance. My earlier
QEMU result that suggested a partial improvement should not be used.

Thanks,
Chengfeng

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Dev Jain]

On 22/07/26 4:07 pm, Chengfeng Lin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry that my earlier message was difficult to follow.
> 
> The previous exact parent/child test showed that cac1db8c3aad slowed this
> workload by 39.77%. To answer your question directly: no. In a separate
> matched v7.1.3 patch-on/patch-off test, Pedro's full v3 series was 6.20%
> slower than the no-v3 controls, so it did not reduce the slowdown in this
> workload.
> 
> I also checked for an update. The latest public revision I found is still v3,
> and it is already included in Linux v7.1.3.
> 
> To isolate the series, I used the same v7.1.3 source for both kernels. The
> no-v3 kernel replaces only mm/mprotect.c with the exact pre-series file at
> 19999e479c2a. The full-v3 kernel is unmodified v7.1.3 and matches the series
> tip at 89e613bc0b2d. The normalized configs and all other build conditions
> were the same.
> 
> I used a fresh boot for every point:
> 
>   point       mean ns/page
>   no-v3 A          55.333
>   full v3          58.200
>   no-v3 B          54.267
> 
> The no-v3 midpoint was 54.800 ns/page. Full v3 was 6.20% slower than that
> midpoint. The two controls drifted by -1.93%. Dropping the first measured run
> from every point left the v3 delta at +6.18%.
> 
> This was the same narrow standalone workload: a 64 MiB shared anonymous
> mapping, dirty 4 KiB pages, and repeated full-range read-only, restore, and
> write-touch cycles. Each point had 3 warm-up processes and 15 measured
> processes; each measured process ran 1,000 cycles. The benchmark was pinned to
> one P-core with Turbo disabled and preempt=none.
> 
> All 45 measured processes passed the returned-value checks and stayed on 4 KiB
> pages with no THP. The protect and restore phases were each about 23 ns/page
> with v3 and 21 ns/page without v3. The later write-touch phase was unchanged.
> 
> So, for this specific microbenchmark on this machine, Pedro v3 did not reduce
> the slowdown. It produced a small slowdown instead. I am not making a claim
> about other mprotect patterns or application-level performance. My earlier
> QEMU result that suggested a partial improvement should not be used.

I don't see why Pedro's patches should cause a slowdown. The only diff I can think
of is the if (likely(nr_ptes == 1)) check.

But again, we have had these microbench regression discussions before. I think it
is clear by now that vm_normal_folio() is bad on some systems. Best we can do
here IMO is avoid that by doing something like

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250506050056.59250-3-dev.jain@arm.com/

> 
> Thanks,
> Chengfeng
> 

Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared-dirty base-page toggle slower since v6.17

[Pedro Falcato]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:24:31PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/07/26 4:07 pm, Chengfeng Lin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Sorry that my earlier message was difficult to follow.
> > 
> > The previous exact parent/child test showed that cac1db8c3aad slowed this
> > workload by 39.77%. To answer your question directly: no. In a separate
> > matched v7.1.3 patch-on/patch-off test, Pedro's full v3 series was 6.20%
> > slower than the no-v3 controls, so it did not reduce the slowdown in this
> > workload.
> > 
> > I also checked for an update. The latest public revision I found is still v3,
> > and it is already included in Linux v7.1.3.
> > 
> > To isolate the series, I used the same v7.1.3 source for both kernels. The
> > no-v3 kernel replaces only mm/mprotect.c with the exact pre-series file at
> > 19999e479c2a. The full-v3 kernel is unmodified v7.1.3 and matches the series
> > tip at 89e613bc0b2d. The normalized configs and all other build conditions
> > were the same.
> > 
> > I used a fresh boot for every point:
> > 
> >   point       mean ns/page
> >   no-v3 A          55.333
> >   full v3          58.200
> >   no-v3 B          54.267
> > 
> > The no-v3 midpoint was 54.800 ns/page. Full v3 was 6.20% slower than that
> > midpoint. The two controls drifted by -1.93%. Dropping the first measured run
> > from every point left the v3 delta at +6.18%.
> > 
> > This was the same narrow standalone workload: a 64 MiB shared anonymous
> > mapping, dirty 4 KiB pages, and repeated full-range read-only, restore, and
> > write-touch cycles. Each point had 3 warm-up processes and 15 measured
> > processes; each measured process ran 1,000 cycles. The benchmark was pinned to
> > one P-core with Turbo disabled and preempt=none.
> > 
> > All 45 measured processes passed the returned-value checks and stayed on 4 KiB
> > pages with no THP. The protect and restore phases were each about 23 ns/page
> > with v3 and 21 ns/page without v3. The later write-touch phase was unchanged.
> > 
> > So, for this specific microbenchmark on this machine, Pedro v3 did not reduce
> > the slowdown. It produced a small slowdown instead. I am not making a claim
> > about other mprotect patterns or application-level performance. My earlier
> > QEMU result that suggested a partial improvement should not be used.
> 
> I don't see why Pedro's patches should cause a slowdown. The only diff I can think
> of is the if (likely(nr_ptes == 1)) check.

Agree. I don't really understand what this slowdown is about (nor have I had
a proper look, to be fair).

> 
> But again, we have had these microbench regression discussions before. I think it
> is clear by now that vm_normal_folio() is bad on some systems. Best we can do
> here IMO is avoid that by doing something like

On my desktop the results were very clear: vm_normal_folio() didn't really
make a difference.

Perhaps we're looking at microarchitectural differences here. I dunno.

-- 
Pedro