From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-99.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.99]) (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 BF7717262D for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:01:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752739288; cv=none; b=RJTedZf+iqyLOTu7Sjv8e+wHohobNBI4cfANZB7pyE6kRmpLiYJtdPYTjTrZS0F+SbNFLOK/tkgR/mHYwgWM5cQYE5E4pPpe75ITI9GcGwddV2SCtMVK79HmKwkj0IDVvkT4SVA7RR80eDpgo/8PUGYlsqJcp5g//rGDmqDVepw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752739288; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2Wmgryy9Cdz9HhsDs9uP14L/aqJjm5OR9TQNYbMqupo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Hrd/OJMpxRV4BvTdg7azCZpzGQL8LdxUgiK2cA1dapY2KAAxyCYj3XclOoQ6DO6Z/1/ccZCpxCEncpFfPsfkmMkZDSnCzeJcO7ADeCxI8dyUNvtt5ewxBL2WDvybsew3yC01uoetQ4YDAXw5BipFM/Ii+3T/Zm8Ti1CNqybcf+0= 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=UmhdZqgW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=115.124.30.99 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="UmhdZqgW" DKIM-Signature:v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.alibaba.com; s=default; t=1752739277; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From:Content-Type; bh=lm57nyWYAq4OaHT76qweXZ54dO7dav1Hwaj3vqzFXs4=; b=UmhdZqgWEz+5K4lDZDkgsAkbmDLsK/0XpTWpyM0PzDK3kGH9U7s+KWo7lYFAJXNwlF6ZHb7IoEqnwK5xZW+wWfvJh38JlJ98FsH2GU06ryBkisGwIQ+Tl1EnGmjZezMK+gb4o6hv+XHOirTAMiOU8WrttftSY0rGZNQx21vjkm4= Received: from 30.74.144.120(mailfrom:baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Wj7QPdo_1752739274 cluster:ay36) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:01:15 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 16:01:14 +0800 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] mm: fault in complete folios instead of individual pages for tmpfs To: Hugh Dickins , Lorenzo Stoakes , Andrew Morton Cc: Matthew Wilcox , david@redhat.com, ziy@nvidia.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, npache@redhat.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, baohua@kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz, rppt@kernel.org, surenb@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <440940e78aeb7430c5cc8b6d2088ae98265b9809.1751599072.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> <20250704151858.73d35a24b4c2f53bdb0c1b85@linux-foundation.org> <4c055849-d7dd-4b9f-9666-fcb0bccf8681@linux.alibaba.com> <007c4a94-c94a-418e-9907-7510422f8ca4@lucifer.local> <23f1c3ab-16ca-41db-b008-22448d9e08f2@linux.alibaba.com> <3bf50873-4d1b-a7c7-112e-3a17ac16077f@google.com> From: Baolin Wang In-Reply-To: <3bf50873-4d1b-a7c7-112e-3a17ac16077f@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025/7/16 04:03, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2025, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 03:53:56PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> On 2025/7/7 21:33, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jul 06, 2025 at 10:02:35AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>> On 2025/7/5 06:18, Andrew Morton wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 11:19:26 +0800 Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> After commit acd7ccb284b8 ("mm: shmem: add large folio support for tmpfs"), >>>>>>> tmpfs can also support large folio allocation (not just PMD-sized large >>>>>>> folios). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, when accessing tmpfs via mmap(), although tmpfs supports large folios, >>>>>>> we still establish mappings at the base page granularity, which is unreasonable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We can map multiple consecutive pages of a tmpfs folios at once according to >>>>>>> the size of the large folio. On one hand, this can reduce the overhead of page >>>>>>> faults; on the other hand, it can leverage hardware architecture optimizations >>>>>>> to reduce TLB misses, such as contiguous PTEs on the ARM architecture. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moreover, tmpfs mount will use the 'huge=' option to control large folio >>>>>>> allocation explicitly. So it can be understood that the process's RSS statistics >>>>>>> might increase, and I think this will not cause any obvious effects for users. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Performance test: >>>>>>> I created a 1G tmpfs file, populated with 64K large folios, and write-accessed it >>>>>>> sequentially via mmap(). I observed a significant performance improvement: >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't sound like a crazy thing to do. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Before the patch: >>>>>>> real 0m0.158s >>>>>>> user 0m0.008s >>>>>>> sys 0m0.150s >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After the patch: >>>>>>> real 0m0.021s >>>>>>> user 0m0.004s >>>>>>> sys 0m0.017s >>>>>> >>>>>> And look at that. >>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c >>>>>>> index 0f9b32a20e5b..9944380e947d 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c >>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c >>>>>>> @@ -5383,10 +5383,10 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) >>>>>>> /* >>>>>>> * Using per-page fault to maintain the uffd semantics, and same >>>>>>> - * approach also applies to non-anonymous-shmem faults to avoid >>>>>>> + * approach also applies to non shmem/tmpfs faults to avoid >>>>>>> * inflating the RSS of the process. >>>>>>> */ >>>>>>> - if (!vma_is_anon_shmem(vma) || unlikely(userfaultfd_armed(vma)) || >>>>>>> + if (!vma_is_shmem(vma) || unlikely(userfaultfd_armed(vma)) || >>>>>>> unlikely(needs_fallback)) { >>>>>>> nr_pages = 1; >>>>>>> } else if (nr_pages > 1) { >>>>>> >>>>>> and that's it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm itching to get this into -stable, really. What LTS user wouldn't >>>>>> want this? >>>>> >>>>> This is an improvement rather than a bugfix, so I don't think it needs to go >>>>> into LTS. >>>>> >>>>> Could it be viewed as correcting an oversight in >>>>>> acd7ccb284b8? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I should have added this optimization in the series of the commit >>>>> acd7ccb284b8. But obviously, I missed this :(. >>>> >>>> Buuut if this was an oversight for that patch that causes an unnecessary >>>> perf degradation, surely this should have fixes tag + cc stable no? >>> >>> IMO, this commit acd7ccb284b8 won't cause perf degradation, instead it is >>> used to introduce a new feature, while the current patch is a further >>> reasonable optimization. As I mentioned, this is an improvement, not a >>> bugfix or a patch to address performance regression. >> >> 4Well :) you say yourself it was an oversight, and it very clearly has a perf >> _impact_, which if you compare backwards to acd7ccb284b8 is a degradation, but I >> get your point. >> >> However, since you say 'oversight' this seems to me that you really meant to >> have included it but hadn't noticed, and additionally, since it just seems to be >> an unequivical good - let's maybe flip this round - why NOT backport it to >> stable? > > I strongly agree with Baolin: this patch is good, thank you, but it is > a performance improvement, a new feature, not a candidate for the stable > tree. I'm surprised anyone thinks otherwise: Andrew, please delete that > stable tag before advancing the patch from mm-unstable to mm-stable. > > And the Fixee went into 6.14, so it couldn't go to 6.12 LTS anyway. Agree. > An unequivocal good? I'm not so sure. > > I expect it ought to be limited, by fault_around_bytes (or suchlike). > > If I understand all the mTHP versus large folio versus PMD-huge handling > correctly (and of course I do not, I'm still weeks if not months away > from understanding most of it), the old vma_is_anon_shmem() case would > be limited by the shmem mTHP tunables, and one can reasonably argue that > they would already take fault_around_bytes-like considerations into account; > but the newly added file-written cases are governed by huge= mount options > intended for PMD-size, but (currently) permitting all lesser orders. > I don't think that mounting a tmpfs huge=always implies that mapping > 256 PTEs for one fault is necessarily a good strategy. > > But looking in the opposite direction, why is there now a vma_is_shmem() > check there in finish_fault() at all? If major filesystems are using > large folios, why aren't they also allowed to benefit from mapping > multiple PTEs at once (in this shared-writable case which the existing > fault-around does not cover - I presume to avoid write amplification, > but that's not an issue when the folio is large already). This is what I'm going to do next. For other filesystems, I think they should also map multiple PTEs at once. IIUC, I don't think this will lead to write amplification (because large folios are already allocated, it will just cause RSS to inflate, but I wonder if this actually causes any problem?), instead the current dirty tracking for mmap write access is per-folio (see iomap_page_mkwrite()), which can cause write amplification. > It's fine to advance cautiously, keeping this to shmem in coming release; > but I think it should be extended soon (without any backport to stable), > and consideration given to limiting it. Yes, I will consider that. But fault_around_bytes is tricky, we can discuss it in subsequent patches. Thanks for your comments.