From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/7] mm/autonuma: replace savedwrite infrastructure
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 18:46:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221108174652.198904-1-david@redhat.com> (raw)
This series is based on mm-unstable.
As discussed in my talk at LPC, we can reuse the same mechanism for
deciding whether to map a pte writable when upgrading permissions via
mprotect() -- e.g., PROT_READ -> PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE -- to replace the
savedwrite infrastructure used for NUMA hinting faults (e.g., PROT_NONE
-> PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE).
Instead of maintaining previous write permissions for a pte/pmd, we
re-determine if the pte/pmd can be writable. The big benefit is that we
have a common logic for deciding whether we can map a pte/pmd writable on
protection changes.
For private mappings, there should be no difference -- from
what I understand, that is what autonuma benchmarks care about.
I ran autonumabench for v1 on a system with 2 NUMA nodes, 96 GiB each via:
perf stat --null --repeat 10
The numa01 benchmark is quite noisy in my environment and I failed to
reduce the noise so far.
numa01:
mm-unstable: 146.88 +- 6.54 seconds time elapsed ( +- 4.45% )
mm-unstable++: 147.45 +- 13.39 seconds time elapsed ( +- 9.08% )
numa02:
mm-unstable: 16.0300 +- 0.0624 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.39% )
mm-unstable++: 16.1281 +- 0.0945 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.59% )
It is worth noting that for shared writable mappings that require
writenotify, we will only avoid write faults if the pte/pmd is dirty
(inherited from the older mprotect logic). If we ever care about optimizing
that further, we'd need a different mechanism to identify whether the FS
still needs to get notified on the next write access.
In any case, such an optimiztion will then not be autonuma-specific,
but mprotect() permission upgrades would similarly benefit from it.
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
v1 -> v2:
* "mm/mprotect: factor out check whether manual PTE write upgrades are
required"
-> Added
* "mm/autonuma: use can_change_(pte|pmd)_writable() to replace savedwrite"
-> Simplify and don't opimize for failed migration
-> Update patch description
RFC -> v1:
* "mm/mprotect: allow clean exclusive anon pages to be writable"
-> Move comment change to patch #2
* "mm/mprotect: minor can_change_pte_writable() cleanups"
-> Adjust comments
* "mm/huge_memory: try avoiding write faults when changing PMD protection"
-> Fix wrong check
* "selftests/vm: anon_cow: add mprotect() optimiation tests"
-> Add basic tests for the mprotect() optimization
David Hildenbrand (6):
mm/mprotect: minor can_change_pte_writable() cleanups
mm/huge_memory: try avoiding write faults when changing PMD protection
mm/mprotect: factor out check whether manual PTE write upgrades are
required
mm/autonuma: use can_change_(pte|pmd)_writable() to replace savedwrite
mm: remove unused savedwrite infrastructure
selftests/vm: anon_cow: add mprotect() optimization tests
Nadav Amit (1):
mm/mprotect: allow clean exclusive anon pages to be writable
arch/powerpc/include/asm/book3s/64/pgtable.h | 80 +-------------------
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_rm_mmu.c | 2 +-
include/linux/mm.h | 18 ++++-
include/linux/pgtable.h | 24 ------
mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c | 32 --------
mm/huge_memory.c | 64 ++++++++++++----
mm/ksm.c | 9 +--
mm/memory.c | 16 +++-
mm/mprotect.c | 50 ++++++------
tools/testing/selftests/vm/anon_cow.c | 49 +++++++++++-
10 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 186 deletions(-)
--
2.38.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-11-08 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-08 17:46 David Hildenbrand [this message]
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] mm/mprotect: allow clean exclusive anon pages to be writable David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] mm/mprotect: minor can_change_pte_writable() cleanups David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] mm/huge_memory: try avoiding write faults when changing PMD protection David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] mm/mprotect: factor out check whether manual PTE write upgrades are required David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] mm/autonuma: use can_change_(pte|pmd)_writable() to replace savedwrite David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] mm: remove unused savedwrite infrastructure David Hildenbrand
2022-11-08 17:46 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] selftests/vm: anon_cow: add mprotect() optimization tests David Hildenbrand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221108174652.198904-1-david@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).