From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE2A1E8854 for ; Mon, 19 May 2025 16:07:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747670854; cv=none; b=IjT3eR/xQSoB616d2VafcsTlAJt6vlvAHI1HiWV2P1nH0MNB6WyNGgHTmYpHeVbqaJKHNQpjpGSWUGs49KIr7R0HLmRHZwSq8ajUn6UlYdLZjKuuxwg42CT2qhpRPw9XvJ+eRQ+AsHSGcNPehjr+iqvhknN9oSMwL931wqLn1t0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1747670854; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hNEw6u4EAGJb1DB1bVNC/5/BMToJOqKdj2yoY4Jt1lk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=e46zA1jBOdlPqL5WNKoKScWAWQ+eOn6kJkKPrSBGMNpe7KgnOlay+DAzJ8/RexkcbCcR/9uarIGMw8al1KHS+eZYrpWpov82TqZ8AgZVHpNiJZp2wMbO7QwP9o0V167UXuNQnhvCoAIdS8yE7aBepCkA8ZW4D5CxYF4HNl+BV2c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=dAYdNcPI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="dAYdNcPI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1747670851; 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=GYjpCzu4umHTb9XWgj4v2xAt07lJPlnlktCffQkFSlg=; b=dAYdNcPIieosAx7KWGf14a0J/nCJlgsi6kyEqPTcFYYtRmarKe0p0IgEG0PEWA206KJhqC MKDpMEtSh8zGotuRCafig8KZjFZI3noVwNl3lGc2vjz53H7z8Sn4XzJkksKOPclwzR9iIo 1ZEngnwJBoOddItJvhPPkdlxoz2fa7k= Received: from mail-io1-f72.google.com (mail-io1-f72.google.com [209.85.166.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-136-HpF8pFAFN86fsT-GCuXqBw-1; Mon, 19 May 2025 12:07:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: HpF8pFAFN86fsT-GCuXqBw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: HpF8pFAFN86fsT-GCuXqBw_1747670849 Received: by mail-io1-f72.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-8649babc826so78841139f.3 for ; Mon, 19 May 2025 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1747670848; x=1748275648; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=GYjpCzu4umHTb9XWgj4v2xAt07lJPlnlktCffQkFSlg=; b=ptvJmf0z6/fEXqDU9ln4s44oWY6+didg9tFEzcwiErwp5Rbvh0Vtf+Q0sB/+84sOrs oLLsykW7NOgaqUVjd2TOwSEO1/IAsY0GNl7oZEEwaf4N1tiUIY5BHCF8t5sM1407ZhR/ GE5bv+qIYkEJC2Q0rpMvZds4ZZlR8p/sSIZqfI5pfaUIQV+enRwJH0gaI3GFqijHrZnu fbK4Dbm3fVhawT1mkkG1+Cs7sXK0AVHpARVGAHbQAp4xgFMq2ZhWjVlVXK1ZpQXtBGfW 8byQuVvav/9QS2TU+ne7Dif6OarZw7fsS6uOEFsmST9NxqMK8RConHoiwrP2MnVok444 z0aw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVmIfBBWT/PnRpF8DFH8cgvhSO7bNhfv8f/maeQWL7haHap0A/SFzrfSxp4WwXsNQnZeCQUcHiQwVcr/sA=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx2NZE/brO/Mjoaoftx3xbl1IcAs5eJEzop/2UkQT8YoZCy3bvd 1dR8DSeGphXb1UNEuIT0aFZF7j7lFuRuaLPoxHaNqgSwo2fUuMtfebFfMnEWkq/ccaOflHBDP8n Ij4bhTLchtz4MfwaPzZEBfHfAiURv5xMlUdo2gA+c2xmp67Y0Fyu3EvIUqzKm10YsSGtQPmmbNQ == X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsVf8ZnqW9t8LY8wgnJdRM+fZeVRJ8jrBFCg0JTJdLtWlt4RADUTNcsBBtCeug MAiAbvMiHKy+pQXiSdm+pIrIP59Oupbe5e5Uwjz6LaPJA/OYPiR+JkYcGvfqcQL+VEcHIxZsS/P Ixths60oo0T1zRPWEW1P5Wc5xyg1eQkSLbBvyPl/UXtcSQhTVZ+wuoQ3gugY031OwgT5Xid6A3A nmXQuTcT2u28Nfga2IZNSY4oN8b40jFiYSKHQegzdW2xxIi95h62UpFih4cLN6scJGPrVlK4qls mQfodY8WTg45F/g= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1689:b0:85b:3f28:ff99 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-86a231d1645mr481250239f.2.1747670847850; Mon, 19 May 2025 09:07:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFtAn8Y71vVS4SgiQMLw5VEZe3qH5TqVf8MmbELUKPUbMF5+1cEG6jjieH5EM5q4B/OXdZgVA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1689:b0:85b:3f28:ff99 with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-86a231d1645mr481248839f.2.1747670847362; Mon, 19 May 2025 09:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([38.15.36.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 8926c6da1cb9f-4fbcc4b170asm1790708173.128.2025.05.19.09.07.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 19 May 2025 09:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 10:07:24 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: lizhe.67@bytedance.com Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, Peter Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfio/type1: optimize vfio_pin_pages_remote() for hugetlbfs folio Message-ID: <20250519100724.7fd6cc1e.alex.williamson@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20250519070419.25827-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com> References: <20250519070419.25827-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.43; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 19 May 2025 15:04:19 +0800 lizhe.67@bytedance.com wrote: > From: Li Zhe > > When vfio_pin_pages_remote() is called with a range of addresses that > includes hugetlbfs folios, the function currently performs individual > statistics counting operations for each page. This can lead to significant > performance overheads, especially when dealing with large ranges of pages. > > This patch optimize this process by batching the statistics counting > operations. > > The performance test results for completing the 8G VFIO IOMMU DMA mapping, > obtained through trace-cmd, are as follows. In this case, the 8G virtual > address space has been mapped to physical memory using hugetlbfs with > pagesize=2M. > > Before this patch: > funcgraph_entry: # 33813.703 us | vfio_pin_map_dma(); > > After this patch: > funcgraph_entry: # 15635.055 us | vfio_pin_map_dma(); > > Signed-off-by: Li Zhe > --- > Changelogs: > > v1->v2: > - Fix some issues in comments and formatting. > - Consolidate vfio_find_vpfn_range() and vfio_find_vpfn(). > - Move the processing logic for hugetlbfs folio into the while(true) loop > and use a variable with a default value of 1 to indicate the number of > consecutive pages. > > v1 patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250513035730.96387-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com/ > > drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > index 0ac56072af9f..2218ca415366 100644 > --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c > @@ -317,17 +317,20 @@ static void vfio_dma_bitmap_free_all(struct vfio_iommu *iommu) > } > > /* > - * Helper Functions for host iova-pfn list > + * Find the first vfio_pfn that overlapping the range > + * [iova, iova + PAGE_SIZE * npage) in rb tree > */ > -static struct vfio_pfn *vfio_find_vpfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t iova) > +static struct vfio_pfn *vfio_find_vpfn_range(struct vfio_dma *dma, > + dma_addr_t iova, unsigned long npage) > { > struct vfio_pfn *vpfn; > struct rb_node *node = dma->pfn_list.rb_node; > + dma_addr_t end_iova = iova + PAGE_SIZE * npage; > > while (node) { > vpfn = rb_entry(node, struct vfio_pfn, node); > > - if (iova < vpfn->iova) > + if (end_iova <= vpfn->iova) > node = node->rb_left; > else if (iova > vpfn->iova) > node = node->rb_right; > @@ -337,6 +340,14 @@ static struct vfio_pfn *vfio_find_vpfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t iova) > return NULL; > } > > +/* > + * Helper Functions for host iova-pfn list > + */ This comment should still precede the renamed function above, it's in reference to this section of code related to searching, inserting, and removing entries from the pfn list. > +static inline struct vfio_pfn *vfio_find_vpfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, dma_addr_t iova) > +{ > + return vfio_find_vpfn_range(dma, iova, 1); > +} > + > static void vfio_link_pfn(struct vfio_dma *dma, > struct vfio_pfn *new) > { > @@ -681,32 +692,67 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr, > * and rsvd here, and therefore continues to use the batch. > */ > while (true) { > + int page_step = 1; > + long lock_acct_step = 1; > + struct folio *folio = page_folio(batch->pages[batch->offset]); > + bool found_vpfn; > + > if (pfn != *pfn_base + pinned || > rsvd != is_invalid_reserved_pfn(pfn)) > goto out; > > + /* Handle hugetlbfs page */ > + if (folio_test_hugetlb(folio)) { Why do we care to specifically test for hugetlb vs folio_large_nr_pages(), at which point we can just use folio_nr_pages() directly here. > + unsigned long start_pfn = PHYS_PFN(vaddr); Using this macro on a vaddr looks wrong. > + > + /* > + * Note: The current page_step does not achieve the optimal > + * performance in scenarios where folio_nr_pages() exceeds > + * batch->capacity. It is anticipated that future enhancements > + * will address this limitation. > + */ > + page_step = min(batch->size, > + ALIGN(start_pfn + 1, folio_nr_pages(folio)) - start_pfn); Why do we assume start_pfn is the beginning of the folio? > + found_vpfn = !!vfio_find_vpfn_range(dma, iova, page_step); > + if (rsvd || !found_vpfn) { > + lock_acct_step = page_step; > + } else { > + dma_addr_t tmp_iova = iova; > + int i; > + > + lock_acct_step = 0; > + for (i = 0; i < page_step; ++i, tmp_iova += PAGE_SIZE) > + if (!vfio_find_vpfn(dma, tmp_iova)) > + lock_acct_step++; > + if (lock_acct_step) > + found_vpfn = false; Why are we making this so complicated versus falling back to iterating at page per page? > + } > + } else { > + found_vpfn = vfio_find_vpfn(dma, iova); > + } > + > /* > * Reserved pages aren't counted against the user, > * externally pinned pages are already counted against > * the user. > */ > - if (!rsvd && !vfio_find_vpfn(dma, iova)) { > + if (!rsvd && !found_vpfn) { > if (!dma->lock_cap && > - mm->locked_vm + lock_acct + 1 > limit) { > + mm->locked_vm + lock_acct + lock_acct_step > limit) { > pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n", > __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT); > ret = -ENOMEM; > goto unpin_out; > } > - lock_acct++; > + lock_acct += lock_acct_step; > } > > - pinned++; > - npage--; > - vaddr += PAGE_SIZE; > - iova += PAGE_SIZE; > - batch->offset++; > - batch->size--; > + pinned += page_step; > + npage -= page_step; > + vaddr += PAGE_SIZE * page_step; > + iova += PAGE_SIZE * page_step; > + batch->offset += page_step; > + batch->size -= page_step; > > if (!batch->size) > break; Why is something like below (untested) not sufficient? NB. (vaddr - folio_address()) still needs some scrutiny to determine if it's valid. @@ -681,32 +692,40 @@ static long vfio_pin_pages_remote(struct vfio_dma *dma, unsigned long vaddr, * and rsvd here, and therefore continues to use the batch. */ while (true) { + struct folio *folio = page_folio(batch->pages[batch->offset]); + long nr_pages; + if (pfn != *pfn_base + pinned || rsvd != is_invalid_reserved_pfn(pfn)) goto out; + nr_pages = min(batch->size, folio_nr_pages(folio) - + (vaddr - folio_address(folio)) >> PAGE_SHIFT); + if (nr_pages > 1 && vfio_find_vpfn_range(dma, iova, nr_pages)) + nr_pages = 1; + /* * Reserved pages aren't counted against the user, * externally pinned pages are already counted against * the user. */ - if (!rsvd && !vfio_find_vpfn(dma, iova)) { + if (!rsvd && (nr_pages > 1 || !vfio_find_vpfn(dma, iova))) { if (!dma->lock_cap && - mm->locked_vm + lock_acct + 1 > limit) { + mm->locked_vm + lock_acct + nr_pages > limit) { pr_warn("%s: RLIMIT_MEMLOCK (%ld) exceeded\n", __func__, limit << PAGE_SHIFT); ret = -ENOMEM; goto unpin_out; } - lock_acct++; + lock_acct += nr_pages; } - pinned++; - npage--; - vaddr += PAGE_SIZE; - iova += PAGE_SIZE; - batch->offset++; - batch->size--; + pinned += nr_pages; + npage -= nr_pages; + vaddr += PAGE_SIZE * nr_pages; + iova += PAGE_SIZE * nr_pages; + batch->offset += nr_pages; + batch->size -= nr_pages; if (!batch->size) break;