From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BF4C433F5 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:18:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 680F56B0072; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 630FA6B0073; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:18:20 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4F8A46B0074; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:18:20 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0001.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.1]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C5A6B0072 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCFC181CB15D for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:18:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79079144760.07.5B4AB40 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A86B1C0010 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:18:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1643361499; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cl9YxSJoJAn9Ygo3if5xmN7enj0GaqFfUdm9RTQ4RmQ=; b=CceBsKztzXRj96WV7p4QxLdFfBBC40OBTFQtk+e92Wm3Ra2QP7a3jFEDVSJJ0g48cC0kJK tP7dfMB2gPnzPl2fVLpC/mgbn2cUMt8gz6ScqEwcxDy+i1ydQAHsfQGK30hL6wDz/OjUxf xElSrPmV/V3jPiGA0MHZpc1mzPTEl5U= Received: from mail-ed1-f72.google.com (mail-ed1-f72.google.com [209.85.208.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-209-ZH1rwqQ6OxaktHWanzBGfQ-1; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 04:18:17 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ZH1rwqQ6OxaktHWanzBGfQ-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f72.google.com with SMTP id i22-20020a50fd16000000b00405039f2c59so2775670eds.1 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:18:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cl9YxSJoJAn9Ygo3if5xmN7enj0GaqFfUdm9RTQ4RmQ=; b=q1Sw1HDnv3sP9LqL7oSY0LouY0L/iuKYDch5Nlv5Cb9aH0mqtz0pd2NIqUFIBLwQsF xIWiQFEnIShG7h7I7Uu23fev6ErfgvnVcILGlUJ4SCXZaCawHcXVtnaz6t0Ap/73KYJE ou5nJsNFBbYVvFe1xdBzrSRrJh7BYcY+r/xnmu1EBFRD00kWhd0/aPC5qpmeRNL9ZlUh 0B1I+YsxxP15IBwsuBMqROqaWW0esAq6wPNOAtaVV9jwLC5Xwp66ehxFL9U0FcIz5zAM GZrkrpmTt7KWsu4QF19+VfGBUmj6fSOSRUGxWQACXvPGJzfgeibTB2v2ZnInW1B+MsSC OBVA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530ZKcE5XcOX2ACb31mXELN8k7hMVu8+7mAxBgi0/2UGW8CU87Vx /NqdiEcR1zX9RQde1/GooKK+KPZBipWD8U9xHNMHeN9+910866jXMgy2SxNcNcm1LE7x0pW3KRn x2BEBg0fP7Is= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7203:: with SMTP id dr3mr5910096ejc.185.1643361496150; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:18:16 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxr5ccOaMCWa/+OUIGe1qydBvxUnkxiNemUkFi8NS0fzpW+g89gKF2x+gDoRkyWRswHU+fmCg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7203:: with SMTP id dr3mr5910068ejc.185.1643361495795; Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c70e:5c00:522f:9bcd:24a0:cd70? (p200300cbc70e5c00522f9bcd24a0cd70.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c70e:5c00:522f:9bcd:24a0:cd70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qf6sm9733468ejc.49.2022.01.28.01.18.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Jan 2022 01:18:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 10:18:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] mm: Change zap_details.zap_mapping into even_cows To: Peter Xu Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alistair Popple , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Matthew Wilcox , John Hubbard , Hugh Dickins , Vlastimil Babka , Yang Shi , "Kirill A . Shutemov" References: <20220128045412.18695-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20220128045412.18695-4-peterx@redhat.com> <847ceb80-d379-b704-8b47-0d662468370b@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: 81jtdmofs6oj5wzcw51uz9sft1yuqyw4 X-Rspam-User: nil Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=CceBsKzt; spf=none (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9A86B1C0010 X-HE-Tag: 1643361499-45065 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 28.01.22 10:17, Peter Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 10:03:20AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 28.01.22 05:54, Peter Xu wrote: >>> Currently we have a zap_mapping pointer maintained in zap_details, when it is >>> specified we only want to zap the pages that has the same mapping with what the >>> caller has specified. >>> >>> But what we want to do is actually simpler: we want to skip zapping >>> private (COW-ed) pages in some cases. We can refer to unmap_mapping_pages() >>> callers where we could have passed in different even_cows values. The other >>> user is unmap_mapping_folio() where we always want to skip private pages. >>> >>> According to Hugh, we used a mapping pointer for historical reason, as >>> explained here: >>> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/391aa58d-ce84-9d4-d68d-d98a9c533255@google.com/ >>> >>> Quotting partly from Hugh: >> >> s/Quotting/Quoting/ > > Will fix. > >> >>> >>> Which raises the question again of why I did not just use a boolean flag >>> there originally: aah, I think I've found why. In those days there was a >>> horrible "optimization", for better performance on some benchmark I guess, >>> which when you read from /dev/zero into a private mapping, would map the zero >>> page there (look up read_zero_pagealigned() and zeromap_page_range() if you >>> dare). So there was another category of page to be skipped along with the >>> anon COWs, and I didn't want multiple tests in the zap loop, so checking >>> check_mapping against page->mapping did both. I think nowadays you could do >>> it by checking for PageAnon page (or genuine swap entry) instead. >>> >>> This patch replaced the zap_details.zap_mapping pointer into the even_cows >>> boolean, then we check it against PageAnon. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Hugh Dickins >>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu >>> --- >>> mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++--------- >>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c >>> index 14d8428ff4db..ffa8c7dfe9ad 100644 >>> --- a/mm/memory.c >>> +++ b/mm/memory.c >>> @@ -1309,8 +1309,8 @@ copy_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma) >>> * Parameter block passed down to zap_pte_range in exceptional cases. >>> */ >>> struct zap_details { >>> - struct address_space *zap_mapping; /* Check page->mapping if set */ >>> struct folio *single_folio; /* Locked folio to be unmapped */ >>> + bool even_cows; /* Zap COWed private pages too? */ >>> }; >>> >>> /* Whether we should zap all COWed (private) pages too */ >>> @@ -1321,13 +1321,10 @@ static inline bool should_zap_cows(struct zap_details *details) >>> return true; >>> >>> /* Or, we zap COWed pages only if the caller wants to */ >>> - return !details->zap_mapping; >>> + return details->even_cows; >>> } >>> >>> -/* >>> - * We set details->zap_mapping when we want to unmap shared but keep private >>> - * pages. Return true if we should zap this page, false otherwise. >>> - */ >>> +/* Decides whether we should zap this page with the page pointer specified */ >>> static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct page *page) >>> { >>> /* If we can make a decision without *page.. */ >>> @@ -1338,7 +1335,8 @@ static inline bool should_zap_page(struct zap_details *details, struct page *pag >>> if (!page) >>> return true; >>> >>> - return details->zap_mapping == page_rmapping(page); >>> + /* Otherwise we should only zap non-anon pages */ >>> + return !PageAnon(page); >>> } >>> >>> static unsigned long zap_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >>> @@ -3403,7 +3401,7 @@ void unmap_mapping_folio(struct folio *folio) >>> first_index = folio->index; >>> last_index = folio->index + folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1; >>> >>> - details.zap_mapping = mapping; >>> + details.even_cows = false; >> >> Already initialized to 0 via struct zap_details details = { }; >> >> We could think about >> >> struct zap_details details = { >> .single_folio = folio, >> }; >> >>> details.single_folio = folio; >>> >>> i_mmap_lock_write(mapping); >>> @@ -3432,7 +3430,7 @@ void unmap_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t start, >>> pgoff_t first_index = start; >>> pgoff_t last_index = start + nr - 1; >>> >>> - details.zap_mapping = even_cows ? NULL : mapping; >>> + details.even_cows = even_cows; >>> if (last_index < first_index) >>> last_index = ULONG_MAX; >>> >> >> Eventually >> >> struct zap_details details = { >> .even_cows = even_cows, >> }; > > I think in the very initial version I have had that C99 init format but I > dropped it for some reason, perhaps when rebasing to the single_page work to > avoid touching the existing code. > > Since as you mentioned single_folio is another.. let's do the cleanup on top? Sure, why not. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb