Re: [Lse-tech] Re: 10.31 second kernel compile

Daniel Phillips
2002-03-16T15:28:57Z

On March 15, 2002 07:20 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In article <E16la2m-0000SX-00@starship>,
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> wrote:
> >On March 14, 2002 02:21 pm, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> >>
> >> Out of curiousity, why there's a need to update the linux page tables ?
> >> Doesn't pte/pmd/pgd family functions provide enough abstraction in
> >> order to maintain _only_ the hashed page table ?
> >
> >No, it's hardwired to the x86 tree view of page translation.
>
> No no no.
>
> If you think that, then you don't see the big picture.

The statement itself is correct, however as for negative connotations, there
aren't any intended.

I meant that the functions are hardwired to the tree structure, which they
certainly are - each flavor of traversal is written out in full as a series
of nested loops across the various tree levels. Taking inventory of the
existing abstractions:

- Low level page table entry operations are per-architecture

- Sizes of tables and entries are per-architecture

- Two-level tables are cleverly made to appear as three-level tables

- Hooks are sprinkled through the code as necessary to accommodate
special per-architecture requirements, including possibly mapping
operations on the generic (x86-style) page table onto the arch's
hardware page tables if necessary.

It could be a lot more abstract than that. Chuck Cranor's UVM (which seems
to bear some sort of filial relationship to the FreeBSD VM) buries all
accesses to the page table behind a 'pmap' API, and implements the standard
Unix VM semantics at the 'memory object' level. In UVM the page table is
just a cache of state encoded in memory objects and a means of communicating
with the hardware.

In contrast, your design dives exuberantly straight into the page table tree
to manipulate it directly, and relies on it as the primary repository of VM
state information. Unix VM semantics are implemented by a seemingly-naive
combination of pte-copying and reference counting. This approach is simple
and robust, and in some cases outperforms UVM's structured high level
approach, e.g,, since there is less structural manipulation to do at fork
time, Linux forking is faster, at least in the case that there are not too
many mapped pages tables in the parent.

When we get into forks from large memory processes the UVM approach beats us,
as page table copying costs start to predominate. At this point your
approach of letting VM state live in the page table comes to the rescue, as I
was able to extend it into a new way of implementing unix VM semantics
efficiently, by sharing page tables instead of relying on memory objects.
This is far simpler than the (to my mind, terrifying) memory object approach.
I would probably not have had this insight if it were not for the way you
designed the page table abstraction. Or should I say, nonabstraction,
because it's precisely the simplicity that allowed it to be extended in an
interesting way.

So yes, I appreciate the elegance of the existing design.

> In fact, when I did the 3-level page tables for Linux, no x86 chips that
> could _use_ three levels actually existed.
>
> The Linux MM was actually _designed_ for portability when I did the port
> to alpha (oh, that's a long time ago). I even wrote my masters thesis on
> why it was done the way it was done (the only actual academic use I ever
> got out of the whole Linux exercise ;)

Honorary doctorates don't count I suppose ;)

> Yes a tree-based page table matches a lot of hardware architectures very
> well. And it's _not_ just x86: it also matches soft-fill TLB's better
> than alternatives (newer sparcs and MIPS), and matches a number of other
> architecture specifications (eg alpha, m68k).
>
> So on about 50% of architectures (and 99.9% of machines), the Linux MM
> data structures can be made to map 1:1 to the hardware constructs, so
> that you avoid duplicate information.
>
> But more importantly than that, the whole point really is that the page
> table tree as far as Linux is concerned is nothing but an _abstraction_
> of the VM mapping hardware. It so happens that a tree format is the only
> sane format to keep full VM information that works well with real loads.
>
> Whatever the hardware actually does, Linux considers that to be noting
> but an extended TLB. When you can make the MM software tree map 1:1
> with the extended TLB (as on x86), you win in memory usage and in
> cheaper TLB invalidates, but you _could_ (if you wanted to) just keep
> two separate trees. In fact, with the rmap patches, that's exactly what
> you see: the software tree is _not_ 1:1 with the hardare tree any more
> (but it _is_ a proper superset, so that you can still get partial
> sharing and still get the cheaper TLB updates).

I don't quite get your point. Rmap is just an inverted index on the page
table tree, not a separate tree.

> Are there machines where the sharing between the software abstraction
> and the hardware isn't as total? Sure. But if you actually know how
> hashed page tables work on ppc, you'd be aware of the fact that they
> aren't actually able to do a full VM mapping - when a hash chain gets too
> long, the hardware is no longer able to look it up ("too long" being 16
> entries on a PPC, for example).

And I suppose you have to take extra faults then to sort this out, and evict
something to make room in the address space. But if more than seven
colliding entries are in the working set, ick.

I hadn't looked at PPC VM architecture before, and now I've taken a cursory
look. I understand the motivation for hashed page tables, that is, to
restrict the mapping overhead to what is actually mapped, flattening out the
structure and speeding up tlb reloads.

In ten years when terabyte memories are common at the high end (fifteen years
for Joe Average's PC) we really will have to worry about such things, not so
much because it won't fit into the existing model - it will - but because the
existing model is not necessarily optimal. Somehow I don't think hashing is
either, personally I hold out more hope for an extent-based approach as the
ultimate winner.

The problem being solved in any case is: how to massage the page table tree
without hitting too many cache lines. I guess we've got a few years to think
about that one, and for the time being, the current approach is perfectly
serviceable.

> And that's a common situation with non-tree VM representations - they
> aren't actually VM representations, they are just caches of what the
> _real_ representation is. And what do we call such caches? Right: they
> are nothing but a TLB.
>
> So the fact is, the Linux tree-based VM has _nothing_ to do with x86
> tree-basedness, and everything to do with the fact that it's the only
> sane way to keep VM information.
>
> The fact that it maps 1:1 to the x86 trees with the "folding" of the mid
> layer was a design consideration, for sure. Being efficient and clever
> is always good. But the basic reason for tree-ness lies elsewhere.
> (The basic reasons for tree-ness is why so many architectures _do_ use a
> tree-based page table - you should think of PPC and ia64 as the sick
> puppies who didn't understand. Read the PPC documentation on virtual
> memory, and you'll see just _how_ sick they are).
>
> Linus

/me adds 'read the PPC VM specs' to his too-long list of things to do

--
Daniel