Re: [PATCH] mm: support large mapping building for tmpfs

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 01.07.25 10:40, Baolin Wang wrote:

Nit: talking about "large mappings" is confusing. Did you actually mean:

"mm: fault in complete folios instead of individual pages for tmpfs"

I suggest not talking about "large mappings" anywhere in this patch 
description, and instead talking about mapping multiple consecutive 
pages of a tmpfs folios at once instead.

> After commit acd7ccb284b8 ("mm: shmem: add large folio support for tmpfs"),
> tmpfs can also support large folio allocation (not just PMD-sized large
> folios).
> 
> However, when accessing tmpfs via mmap(), although tmpfs supports large folios,
> we still establish mappings at the base page granularity, which is unreasonable.
 > > We can establish large mappings according to the size of the large 
folio. On one
> hand, this can reduce the overhead of page faults; on the other hand, it can
> leverage hardware architecture optimizations to reduce TLB misses, such as
> contiguous PTEs on the ARM architecture.

The latter would still apply if faulting in each individual page I 
guess. cont-pte will try to auto-optimize IIRC.

> 
> Moreover, since the user has already added the 'huge=' option when mounting tmpfs
> to allow for large folio allocation, establishing large folios' mapping is expected
> and will not surprise users by inflating the RSS of the process.

Hm, are we sure about that? Also, how does fault_around_bytes interact here?

> 
> In order to support large mappings for tmpfs, besides checking VMA limits and
> PMD pagetable limits, it is also necessary to check if the linear page offset
> of the VMA is order-aligned within the file.

Why?

This only applies to PMD mappings. See below.

> 
> Performance test:
> I created a 1G tmpfs file, populated with 64K large folios, and accessed it
> sequentially via mmap(). I observed a significant performance improvement:
> 
> Before the patch:
> real	0m0.214s
> user	0m0.012s
> sys	0m0.203s
> 
> After the patch:
> real	0m0.025s
> user	0m0.000s
> sys	0m0.024s
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   mm/memory.c | 13 +++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 0f9b32a20e5b..6385a9385a9b 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -5383,10 +5383,10 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Using per-page fault to maintain the uffd semantics, and same
> -	 * approach also applies to non-anonymous-shmem faults to avoid
> +	 * approach also applies to non shmem/tmpfs faults to avoid
>   	 * inflating the RSS of the process.
>   	 */
> -	if (!vma_is_anon_shmem(vma) || unlikely(userfaultfd_armed(vma)) ||
> +	if (!vma_is_shmem(vma) || unlikely(userfaultfd_armed(vma)) ||
>   	    unlikely(needs_fallback)) {
>   		nr_pages = 1;
>   	} else if (nr_pages > 1) {
> @@ -5395,15 +5395,20 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>   		pgoff_t vma_off = vmf->pgoff - vmf->vma->vm_pgoff;
>   		/* The index of the entry in the pagetable for fault page. */
>   		pgoff_t pte_off = pte_index(vmf->address);
> +		unsigned long hpage_size = PAGE_SIZE << folio_order(folio);
>   
>   		/*
>   		 * Fallback to per-page fault in case the folio size in page
> -		 * cache beyond the VMA limits and PMD pagetable limits.
> +		 * cache beyond the VMA limits or PMD pagetable limits. And
> +		 * also check if the linear page offset of vma is order-aligned
> +		 * within the file for tmpfs.
>   		 */
>   		if (unlikely(vma_off < idx ||
>   			    vma_off + (nr_pages - idx) > vma_pages(vma) ||
>   			    pte_off < idx ||
> -			    pte_off + (nr_pages - idx)  > PTRS_PER_PTE)) {
> +			    pte_off + (nr_pages - idx)  > PTRS_PER_PTE) ||
> +			    !IS_ALIGNED((vma->vm_start >> PAGE_SHIFT) - vma->vm_pgoff,
> +					hpage_size >> PAGE_SHIFT)) {

Again, why? Shouldn't set_pte_range() just do the right thing? 
set_ptes() doesn't have any such restriction.

Also see the arm64 variant where we call

	contpte_set_ptes(mm, addr, ptep, pte, nr);

There, I think we perform checks whether whether we can set the cont-pte 
bit IIUC.

	if (((addr | next | (pfn << PAGE_SHIFT)) & ~CONT_PTE_MASK) == 0)
		pte = pte_mkcont(pte);
	else
		pte = pte_mknoncont(pte);

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb