Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] mm: madvise: Avoid split during MADV_PAGEOUT and MADV_COLD

Ryan Roberts
2024-03-21T15:24:37Z

On 21/03/2024 14:55, Lance Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:38 PM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> - VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio), folio);
>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>> - if (!pageout && pte_young(ptent)) {
>>>>>>>>>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte,
>>>>>>>>>> - tlb->fullmm);
>>>>>>>>>> - ptent = pte_mkold(ptent);
>>>>>>>>>> - set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, ptent);
>>>>>>>>>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>>>>>>>> + if (!pageout) {
>>>>>>>>>> + for (; nr != 0; nr--, pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>>>>>>> + if (ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, addr, pte))
>>>>>>>>>> + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IIRC, some of the architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB with set_pte_at and
>>>>>>> tlb_remove_tlb_entry. So, didn't we consider remapping the PTE with old after
>>>>>>> pte clearing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry Lance, I don't understand this question, can you rephrase? Are you saying
>>>>>> there is a good reason to do the original clear-mkold-set for some arches?
>>>>>
>>>>> IIRC, some of the architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB with
>>>>> ptep_test_and_clear_young()
>>>>> and tlb_remove_tlb_entry().
>>
>> Afraid I'm still struggling with this comment. Do you mean to say that powerpc
>> invalidates the TLB entry as part of the call to ptep_test_and_clear_young()? So
>> tlb_remove_tlb_entry() would be redundant here, and likely cause performance
>> degradation on that architecture?
>
> I just thought that using ptep_test_and_clear_young() instead of
> ptep_get_and_clear_full() + pte_mkold() might not be correct.
> However, it's most likely that I was mistaken :(

OK, I'm pretty confident that my usage is correct.

>
> I also have a question. Why aren't we using ptep_test_and_clear_young() in
> madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range(), but instead
> ptep_get_and_clear_full() + pte_mkold() as we did previously.
>
> /*
> * Some of architecture(ex, PPC) don't update TLB
> * with set_pte_at and tlb_remove_tlb_entry so for
> * the portability, remap the pte with old|clean
> * after pte clearing.
> */

Ahh, I see; this is a comment from madvise_free_pte_range() I don't quite
understand that comment. I suspect it might be out of date, or saying that doing
set_pte_at(pte_mkold(ptep_get(ptent))) is not correct because it is not atomic
and the HW could set the dirty bit between the get and the set. Doing the atomic
ptep_get_and_clear_full() means you go via a pte_none() state, so if the TLB is
racing it will see the entry isn't valid and fault.

Note that madvise_free_pte_range() is trying to clear both the access and dirty
bits, whereas madvise_cold_or_pageout_pte_range() is only trying to clear the
access bit. There is a special helper to clear the access bit atomically -
ptep_test_and_clear_young() - but there is no helper to clear the access *and*
dirty bit, I don't believe. There is ptep_set_access_flags(), but that sets
flags to a "more permissive setting" (i.e. allows setting the flags, not
clearing them). Perhaps this constraint can be relaxed given we will follow up
with an explicit TLBI - it would require auditing all the implementations.

>
> According to this comment from madvise_free_pte_range. IIUC, we need to
> call ptep_get_and_clear_full() to clear the PTE, and then remap the
> PTE with old|clean.
>
> Thanks,
> Lance
>
>>
>> IMHO, ptep_test_and_clear_young() really shouldn't be invalidating the TLB
>> entry, that's what ptep_clear_flush_young() is for.
>>
>> But I do see that for some cases of the 32-bit ppc, there appears to be a flush:
>>
>> #define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_TEST_AND_CLEAR_YOUNG
>> static inline int __ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
>> {
>> unsigned long old;
>> old = pte_update(mm, addr, ptep, _PAGE_ACCESSED, 0, 0);
>> if (old & _PAGE_HASHPTE)
>> flush_hash_entry(mm, ptep, addr); <<<<<<<<
>>
>> return (old & _PAGE_ACCESSED) != 0;
>> }
>> #define ptep_test_and_clear_young(__vma, __addr, __ptep) \
>> __ptep_test_and_clear_young((__vma)->vm_mm, __addr, __ptep)
>>
>> Is that what you are describing? Does any anyone know why flush_hash_entry() is
>> called? I'd say that's a bug in ppc and not a reason not to use
>> ptep_test_and_clear_young() in the common code!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Err, I assumed tlb_remove_tlb_entry() meant "invalidate the TLB entry for this
>>>> address please" - albeit its deferred and batched. I'll look into this.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my new patch[1], I use refresh_full_ptes() and
>>>>> tlb_remove_tlb_entries() to batch-update the
>>>>> access and dirty bits.
>>>>
>>>> I want to avoid the per-pte clear-modify-set approach, because this doesn't
>>>> perform well on arm64 when using contpte mappings; it will cause the contpe
>>>> mapping to be unfolded by the first clear that touches the contpte block, then
>>>> refolded by the last set to touch the block. That's expensive.
>>>> ptep_test_and_clear_young() doesn't suffer that problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks for explaining. I got it.
>>>
>>> I think that other architectures will benefit from the per-pte clear-modify-set
>>> approach. IMO, refresh_full_ptes() can be overridden by arm64.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lance
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240316102952.39233-1-ioworker0@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lance
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Lance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This looks so smart. if it is not pageout, we have increased pte
>>>>>>>>> and addr here; so nr is 0 and we don't need to increase again in
>>>>>>>>> for (; addr < end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> otherwise, nr won't be 0. so we will increase addr and
>>>>>>>>> pte by nr.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. I'm hoping that Lance is able to follow a similar pattern for
>>>>>>>> madvise_free_pte_range().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Overall, LGTM,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>