From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out199-18.us.a.mail.aliyun.com (out199-18.us.a.mail.aliyun.com [47.90.199.18]) (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 B2B1114B96E for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 03:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=47.90.199.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742960326; cv=none; b=FxbvAHswRl7n7Cn7zHsLSTFy2TtRnWlGAEU6XA1xIH50JvIUZGskjgpC+rxN3KciuaEQpPhSeTrAFwmKk56kgbIJ/y3nYYZvnBeGsUP+ZM/B18XRro4qpWUdHe+80GOmrrOyi1bSS+Wte5/lAHtDf6zD3SnwqrB3StGYvn/db5c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742960326; c=relaxed/simple; bh=kzuBG+mctN9JNDwceI3PhK/fkfhKbsz2BUjJMajn7ew=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=ODjrqhvGOJFduxW3WMDTeTVpPDfj6whad69tS11WGJW+aCCtPipjpDVUi21rKYCNTJl1oUOXltv5Af0+kk71Nn/WKtkvn8vcQmDg4KHw6qzfeO7tDqeM5mg+pMmzudy6PTkHSUOwjLJAob7ZJRQt/dyrGlrAKlrMk9LOv7xaCZM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b=mz6fdK0n; arc=none smtp.client-ip=47.90.199.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.alibaba.com header.i=@linux.alibaba.com header.b="mz6fdK0n" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1742960304; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; bh=5NwoAahKKVIW1jwVHjfRD7hDZG4CMMysDy/7TbSbzCE=; b=mz6fdK0n95h+NiUBpVWdTyhVY16F6o1CJAgKqSbaVRiSrqXLg8LNHIv2fVHQa+k7accuCfN5sxOMotAnJQLLYugr54kgBklCjmCqWq4XHXt1GN3Iyf6pWACy12g6HHekujqMzW9a9cK0vdm35TDnzVZAXWc4zrIoVj7i2tQf3CE= Received: from localhost(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0WT1p3x3_1742960303 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:38:24 +0800 From: Baolin Wang To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com Cc: willy@infradead.org, david@redhat.com, 21cnbao@gmail.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, ziy@nvidia.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH 2/2] mm: mincore: use folio_pte_batch() to batch process large folios Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:38:11 +0800 Message-ID: <7ad05bc9299de5d954fb21a2da57f46dd6ec59d0.1742960003.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.5 In-Reply-To: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit When I tested the mincore() syscall, I observed that it takes longer with 64K mTHP enabled on my Arm64 server. The reason is the mincore_pte_range() still checks each PTE individually, even when the PTEs are contiguous, which is not efficient. Thus we can use folio_pte_batch() to get the batch number of the present contiguous PTEs, which can improve the performance. I tested the mincore() syscall with 1G anonymous memory populated with 64K mTHP, and observed an obvious performance improvement: w/o patch w/ patch changes 6022us 1115us +81% Moreover, I also tested mincore() with disabling mTHP/THP, and did not see any obvious regression. Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang --- mm/mincore.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/mincore.c b/mm/mincore.c index 832f29f46767..88be180b5550 100644 --- a/mm/mincore.c +++ b/mm/mincore.c @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ #include #include "swap.h" +#include "internal.h" static int mincore_hugetlb(pte_t *pte, unsigned long hmask, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk) @@ -105,6 +106,7 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, pte_t *ptep; unsigned char *vec = walk->private; int nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT; + int step, i; ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(pmd, vma); if (ptl) { @@ -118,16 +120,31 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, walk->action = ACTION_AGAIN; return 0; } - for (; addr != end; ptep++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) { + for (; addr != end; ptep += step, addr += step * PAGE_SIZE) { pte_t pte = ptep_get(ptep); + step = 1; /* We need to do cache lookup too for pte markers */ if (pte_none_mostly(pte)) __mincore_unmapped_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE, vma, vec); - else if (pte_present(pte)) - *vec = 1; - else { /* pte is a swap entry */ + else if (pte_present(pte)) { + if (pte_batch_hint(ptep, pte) > 1) { + struct folio *folio = vm_normal_folio(vma, addr, pte); + + if (folio && folio_test_large(folio)) { + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | + FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY; + int max_nr = (end - addr) / PAGE_SIZE; + + step = folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, ptep, pte, + max_nr, fpb_flags, NULL, NULL, NULL); + } + } + + for (i = 0; i < step; i++) + vec[i] = 1; + } else { /* pte is a swap entry */ swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte); if (non_swap_entry(entry)) { @@ -146,7 +163,7 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, #endif } } - vec++; + vec += step; } pte_unmap_unlock(ptep - 1, ptl); out: -- 2.43.5