From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 1CE931EE006 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 03:06:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744254404; cv=none; b=CFWcmgzC+OVm7U0IukDNuAM0tSo3ihrHGc8zfo5HGYI5K4gDEEg5MU2y1JNXB/F9ZsK0Md8BKN6+PYRJbF6NCuLAYeYqT6buldGsJXrLbaykZIEykCeqFkcTxM0gHpdbx0tVaar37wgVUN5TXKGSLK2c9Pe7tYTIUTYQk8APRE8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744254404; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tksNHgHRCsEVxjpDPPHElpCkWFpoa1+G8XyxUdBsxXY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=n61N/oMP/U0nlJPMzPelxDbwGjisUpkeiZlzs8Socshcy39RiQryFfuhsVqTdEGVqkxvVjXJLVlx2uOaLJFWiDB3tk/hU4dGLfFhnw6oqK1Xnzb1PgND7RdfJnaXJq9/Ug/K5TK5d0+LmHr/8kbZYvWCNr3rodnhS0iz9VoY3KM= 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=SE5Wemep; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 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="SE5Wemep" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1744254402; 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=9XMr/eO0DdnkcMTouhh5uGqjIuVE+H+9lNMnsptGCrs=; b=SE5Wemepkq767cKZxrxC6mQBflshzA+XVbnI7Y8exDS9gMTVA1aVzwBez536UaZ9g3cQCU Va9kuALwIt5cD1dwXd/YP4psNlgOX1GiKqRDskfN9kxMrJuYr0Eu0yuD3N1sfV1VtR5/GE wZru7VGK33QTL8ppwSpGw2fV3OGrSEs= Received: from mail-pg1-f197.google.com (mail-pg1-f197.google.com [209.85.215.197]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-625-blAt_6_vMJ-xTAML0MktEw-1; Wed, 09 Apr 2025 23:06:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: blAt_6_vMJ-xTAML0MktEw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: blAt_6_vMJ-xTAML0MktEw_1744254400 Received: by mail-pg1-f197.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-af5310c1ac1so260116a12.2 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1744254398; x=1744859198; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9XMr/eO0DdnkcMTouhh5uGqjIuVE+H+9lNMnsptGCrs=; b=W2y0+bDW6SHOSEHeHbVx2/zB2dcPOgwY4PBpURcazhTvfOEYQ3gyVLcrW1qXh3SHBY T1KLezt6Io+xMEatHCZnr4JQaI7mDxfM2MvSoJ4L7Re60lmCf1w4DmHHJzTUtzsTvKx1 7Ai0pKOzcWZCqlpzGp4uYS78Sl7zEe0184xhmxLuzVJUjPyBDXRfo5edrZKd/A2Uzwcw 2jcm/AI0u3IlqJonRjOptbXcS/tHs6dovSiH0ARPGxR2+FIfvRByvNFSJlQnlPPRo8Vt yuJv867eUaPjDbIkBkKvTtmbxMr5j4apJiL2awlBYpfsl9XZEs+YdflEe7JSEWD/4kBT N0uw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWVqOznlN7b5AquYcSJdMr/TlVFCC6npy3nYzfFCxsxcsh7wxC2UucqCo65xWHcZM759F25P6kjmxT26zM=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxrrJsYF/byLMFGIajqnwzUHClC8AYRZj6uZ1Wx7tjILYBvoP0s x0dRksNslHXbfiGMy7lf2CxbxvV/8rjbxB3oW6MiPN8kqHZjdsl3eKk1EEQX1L+jpdLLTyTRW/x +FwbEyerL6HL/JhSdFZM7VeGWkfWu8tu59UH+IshcG6M63GAtzbjiOX16HtsZzBBKlhuf3w== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctgaKbbmXRKS+OD+j2Lx5TR7YUjJZtenJXpuQR4kJiDDYb+/IDwuiH1R7tH7wv S4TM8I1WR2Di4DT5TOyThLJ6G1NPUWPezubzc3G0yw1moi6nvjyagX0ujsvJXL561ZfQpsMbwik awy6VgPYKKbYa5kbLMnKqIgp0ujg++4NRE7YVvXWLmIH+f6JJt1bkCyD9XQVYsECoghpU48iDTB vjd10qgUf974zbtlRH12am28xnHSYM5vVGE2l7IHZ6hlH3psBHG6DWMjv95//2VfWyOJPW8GXu8 omUGMwcq765h X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d4ca:b0:223:2630:6b82 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-22b2edad4damr17421965ad.10.1744254398099; Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:06:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHzlBkyEQFpu9vtQ/YjmuNT9je8xNQcOB1fjPDsW03Tq7GevZn8h8JQCXraYTcFA36FNyc+tA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d4ca:b0:223:2630:6b82 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-22b2edad4damr17421675ad.10.1744254397748; Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.68.55] ([180.233.125.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-22ac7ccb57fsm19847395ad.229.2025.04.09.20.06.33 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 Apr 2025 20:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <343c26b4-285d-404b-a397-2b5785cfe18e@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:06:31 +1000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/contpte: Optimize loop to reduce redundant operations To: Xavier Cc: dev.jain@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, baohua@kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, ioworker0@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org References: <027cc666-a562-46fa-bca5-1122ea00ec0e@arm.com> <20250408085809.2217618-1-xavier_qy@163.com> <20250408085809.2217618-2-xavier_qy@163.com> <34a4bf01-6324-482b-a011-32974d68e02f@redhat.com> <711cf430.b25d.1961b1a1b0e.Coremail.xavier_qy@163.com> <3a9c1db1-7598-4f71-be62-f6005e3fec72@redhat.com> <32828be7.3220.1961d9e3cc3.Coremail.xavier_qy@163.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Gavin Shan In-Reply-To: <32828be7.3220.1961d9e3cc3.Coremail.xavier_qy@163.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Xavier, On 4/10/25 12:53 PM, Xavier wrote: > At 2025-04-10 08:58:46, "Gavin Shan" wrote: >> >> On 4/10/25 1:10 AM, Xavier wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for carefully reviewing this patch and raising your questions. >>> I'll try to explain and answer them below. >>> >> >> Not a problem :) >> >>> >>> At 2025-04-09 12:09:48, "Gavin Shan" wrote: >>>> Hi Xavier, >>>> >>>> On 4/8/25 6:58 PM, Xavier wrote: >>>>> This commit optimizes the contpte_ptep_get function by adding early >>>>> termination logic. It checks if the dirty and young bits of orig_pte >>>>> are already set and skips redundant bit-setting operations during >>>>> the loop. This reduces unnecessary iterations and improves performance. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Xavier >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c >>>>> index bcac4f55f9c1..034d153d7d19 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/contpte.c >>>>> @@ -152,6 +152,18 @@ void __contpte_try_unfold(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>>> } >>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__contpte_try_unfold); >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm wandering how it can work. More details are given below. >>>> >>>>> +#define CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG(start, ptep, orig_pte, flag) \ >>>>> + do { \ >>>>> + int _start = start; \ >>>>> + pte_t *_ptep = ptep; \ >>>>> + while (_start++ < CONT_PTES) { \ >>>>> + if (pte_##flag(__ptep_get(_ptep++))) { \ >>>>> + orig_pte = pte_mk##flag(orig_pte); \ >>>>> + break; \ >>>>> + } \ >>>>> + } \ >>>>> + } while (0) >>>>> + >> >> nit: the variable _start and _ptep can be dropped since the caller is going to >> bail after CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG(). However, I'm wandering it's going to introduce >> burden to contpte_ptep_get() for its readability, much more complex than I >> thought. > > Not adding these two variables in the current code has no impact. The main purpose > of adding them is to improve maintainability and prevent the external code from > continuing operations unknowingly after the macro has modified the variables. > >> >>>> >>>> CONT_PTES is 16 with the assumption of 4KB base page size. CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG() >>>> collects the flag for ptep[start, CONT_PTES]. >>>> >>>>> pte_t contpte_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep, pte_t orig_pte) >>>>> { >>>>> /* >>>>> @@ -169,11 +181,17 @@ pte_t contpte_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep, pte_t orig_pte) >>>>> for (i = 0; i < CONT_PTES; i++, ptep++) { >>>>> pte = __ptep_get(ptep); >>>>> >>>>> - if (pte_dirty(pte)) >>>>> + if (pte_dirty(pte)) { >>>>> orig_pte = pte_mkdirty(orig_pte); >>>>> + CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG(i, ptep, orig_pte, young); >>>>> + break; >>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> - if (pte_young(pte)) >>>>> + if (pte_young(pte)) { >>>>> orig_pte = pte_mkyoung(orig_pte); >>>>> + CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG(i, ptep, orig_pte, dirty); >>>>> + break; >>>>> + } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> return orig_pte; >>>> >>>> There are two issues as I can see: (1) The loop stops on any dirty or young flag. Another >>>> flag can be missed when one flag is seen. For example, when ptep[0] has both dirty/young >>>> flag, only the dirty flag is collected. (2) CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG() iterates ptep[i, CONT_PTES], >>>> conflicting to the outer loop, which iterates ptep[0, CONT_PTES]. >>> >>> No flags will be missed. The outer loop is used to check for the first flag, >>> which could be either the dirty or young flag. >>> Once this flag (let's assume it's the dirty flag) is found in the i-th PTE, >>> the dirty flag of orig_pte will be set, and the code will immediately enter >>> the inner loop, namely CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG. This inner loop will continue >>> to check only for the young flag starting from the i-th position, and we needn't >>> concern about the dirty flag anymore. >>> If CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG finds the young flag in the j-th PTE, the young flag >>> of orig_pte will be set. At this point, both the young and dirty flags of >>> orig_pte have been set, and there's no need for further loop judgments, so >>> the both the inner and outer loops can be exited directly. This approach >>> reduces unnecessary repeated traversals and judgments. >>> >> >> Thanks for the explanation. I missed that the subsequent young bit is collected >> on pte_dirty(). Similarly, the subsequent dirty bit is collected on pte_young(). >> Now I can see all (dirty | young) bits are collected with a lost. >> >>>> >>>> Besides, I also doubt how much performance can be gained by bailing early on (dirty | young). >>>> However, it's avoided to cross the L1D cache line boundary if possible. With 4KB base page >>>> size, 128 bytes are needed for ptep[CONT_PTES], equal to two cache lines. If we can bail >>>> early with luck, we don't have to step into another cache line. Note that extra checks needs >>>> more CPU cycles. >>> >>> Compared to the previous function, this code doesn't add any extra checks. >>> Even in the worst-case scenario, where neither a dirty nor a young flag is >>> found among the 16 PTEs, the number of checks is the same as in the original >>> function. If any flag is found earlier, the optimized patch will reduce the >>> number of subsequent checks for that flag compared to the original code. >>> >> >> There are 32 checks in the original code (assuming we have 4kb base page size >> and CONT_PTES == 16) and the number of checks is fixed. With your patch applied, >> the number becomes 32 + (number from CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG) if all PTEs have >> pte_dirty() and none of them has pte_young(), if I don't miss anything here. >> > > If all PTEs are dirty and none are young, the code will enter CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG > when it encounters the first dirty PTE. Inside CHECK_CONTPTE_FLAG, it only checks > for the young bit (16 - 0) times and then exits all loops. In this case, the total number > of checks is 1 + 16, which is less than the original 32. > You're correct. The outer loop is going to stop on pte_dirty() or pte_young(). Well, you can see the code becomes hard to be understood, at least to me :) [...] Thanks, Gavin