From: "Li Zhe" <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <muchun.song@linux.dev>, <osalvador@suse.de>, <david@kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<aiqi.i7@bytedance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: fix overbroad MMU notifiers for unshared PMDs
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2026 12:00:50 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e64e6cd5-e7fd-46ed-9116-28e2e97a48ca@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831173220.72ab28190a44a305dacf4d04@linux-foundation.org>
On 9/1/26 8:32 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 17:10:23 +0800 "Li Zhe" <lizhe.67@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
>> Hugetlb currently expands MMU notifier ranges to PUD boundaries whenever
>> PMD sharing is possible. That is only needed when huge_pmd_unshare()
>> actually detaches a shared PMD page table, because clearing the PUD
>> invalidates the whole PUD-sized virtual address range.
>>
>> For hugetlbfs hole punch and MADV_DONTNEED, a shared mapping can pass
>> the "PMD sharing is possible" range test in function
>> adjust_range_if_pmd_sharing_possible() even when the PMD table covering
>> the target 2M page is not shared. KVM then receives a 1G invalidation for
>> a 2M operation and zaps unrelated secondary mappings, so the guest has to
>> fault them back in.
>>
>> Fix this by using the existing cheap "sharing possible" test only as a
>> gate, then inspect the candidate PMD tables under the locks held by the
>> hugetlb unmap paths. The notifier is expanded only for PUDs whose PMD
>> table is actually shared, while the other callers keep the existing
>> conservative expansion.
> Thanks.
>
>> On a Redis-in-VM workload that punches cold 2M hugetlb pages, this
>> patch improves P99 QPS stability while punching pages, reducing the QPS
>> degradation ratio from 7.09% to 1.45%.
> So a modest performance improvement?
Yes, I would describe the measured end-to-end improvement as modest and
workload-specific. The Redis number is mainly intended to show that the
over-notification can have a visible impact in a real workload; it is not
meant to be a general benchmark result.
>
> This led Sashiko to perhaps discover what it considers a "critical"
> pre-existing bug.
>
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831091023.66581-1-lizhe.67@bytedance.com
Regarding the Sashiko report, it looks like a valid pre-existing issue to
me. I have not yet looked into it in full detail, but I will spend more
time analyzing the problem and the proper fix. If that analysis confirms
the issue, I plan to send a separate fix patch for it.
Thanks,
Zhe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 4:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 9:10 Li Zhe
2026-09-01 0:32 ` Andrew Morton
2026-09-01 4:00 ` Li Zhe [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=e64e6cd5-e7fd-46ed-9116-28e2e97a48ca@bytedance.com \
--to=lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
--cc=aiqi.i7@bytedance.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®