Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: thp: Return the correct value for change_huge_pmd

Mel Gorman
2015-03-07T20:56:25Z

On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 12:31:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > if (!prot_numa || !pmd_protnone(*pmd)) {
> > - ret = 1;
> > entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> > entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> > ret = HPAGE_PMD_NR;
>
> Hmm. I know I acked this already, but the return value - which correct
> - is still potentially something we could improve upon.
>
> In particular, we don't need to flush the TLB's if the old entry was
> not present. Sadly, we don't have a helper function for that.
>
> But the code *could* do something like
>
> entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> ret = pmd_tlb_cacheable(entry) ? HPAGE_PMD_NR : 1;
> entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
>
> where pmd_tlb_cacheable() on x86 would test if _PAGE_PRESENT (bit #0) is set.
>

I agree with you in principle. pmd_tlb_cacheable looks and sounds very
similar to pte_accessible().

> In particular, that would mean that as we change *from* a protnone
> (whether NUMA or really protnone) we wouldn't need to flush the TLB.
>
> In fact, we could make it even more aggressive: it's not just an old
> non-present TLB entry that doesn't need flushing - we can avoid the
> flushing whenever we strictly increase the access rigths. So we could
> have something that takes the old entry _and_ the new protections into
> account, and avoids the TLB flush if the new entry is strictly more
> permissive.
>
> This doesn't explain the extra TLB flushes Dave sees, though, because
> the old code didn't make those kinds of optimizations either. But
> maybe something like this is worth doing.
>

I think it is worth doing although it'll be after LSF/MM before I do it. I
severely doubt this is what Dave is seeing because the vmstats indicated
there was no THP activity but it's still a good idea.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs