| Message ID | 20240409192301.907377-6-david@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm: mapcount for large folios + page_mapcount() cleanups | expand |
Hey David,
Maybe I spotted a bug below.
[...]
static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio)
{
- return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1;
+ int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio);
+
+ /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */
+ if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio)))
+ return mapcount > 1;
+
+ /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */
+ if (mapcount <= 1)
+ return false;
+
+ /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */
+ if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio))
+ return true;
bug: if a PMD-mapped THP is exclusively mapped, the folio_entire_mapcount()
function will return 1 (atomic_read(&folio->_entire_mapcount) + 1).
IIUC, when mapping a PMD entry for the entire THP, folio->_entire_mapcount
increments from -1 to 0.
Thanks,
Lance
+
+ /* Let's guess based on the first subpage. */
+ return atomic_read(&folio->_mapcount) > 0;
}
[...]
On 16.04.24 12:40, Lance Yang wrote: > Hey David, > > Maybe I spotted a bug below. Thanks for the review! > > [...] > static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) > { > - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; > + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); > + > + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ > + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) > + return mapcount > 1; > + > + /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */ > + if (mapcount <= 1) > + return false; > + > + /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */ > + if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio)) > + return true; > > bug: if a PMD-mapped THP is exclusively mapped, the folio_entire_mapcount() > function will return 1 (atomic_read(&folio->_entire_mapcount) + 1). If it's exclusively mapped, then folio_mapcount(folio)==1. In which case the previous statement: if (mapcount <= 1) return false; Catches it. IOW, once we reach this point we now that folio_mapcount(folio) > 1, and there must be something else besides the entire mapping ("more than once"). Or did I not address your concern?
On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 16.04.24 12:40, Lance Yang wrote: > > Hey David, > > > > Maybe I spotted a bug below. > > Thanks for the review! > > > > > [...] > > static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) > > { > > - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; > > + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); > > + > > + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ > > + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) > > + return mapcount > 1; > > + > > + /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */ > > + if (mapcount <= 1) > > + return false; > > + > > + /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */ > > + if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio)) > > + return true; > > > > bug: if a PMD-mapped THP is exclusively mapped, the folio_entire_mapcount() > > function will return 1 (atomic_read(&folio->_entire_mapcount) + 1). > > If it's exclusively mapped, then folio_mapcount(folio)==1. In which case > the previous statement: > > if (mapcount <= 1) > return false; > > Catches it. You're right! > > IOW, once we reach this point we now that folio_mapcount(folio) > 1, and > there must be something else besides the entire mapping ("more than once"). > > > Or did I not address your concern? Sorry, my mistake :( Thanks, Lance > > -- > Cheers, > > David / dhildenb >
On 16.04.24 12:52, Lance Yang wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:47 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 16.04.24 12:40, Lance Yang wrote: >>> Hey David, >>> >>> Maybe I spotted a bug below. >> >> Thanks for the review! >> >>> >>> [...] >>> static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) >>> { >>> - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; >>> + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); >>> + >>> + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ >>> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) >>> + return mapcount > 1; >>> + >>> + /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */ >>> + if (mapcount <= 1) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */ >>> + if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio)) >>> + return true; >>> >>> bug: if a PMD-mapped THP is exclusively mapped, the folio_entire_mapcount() >>> function will return 1 (atomic_read(&folio->_entire_mapcount) + 1). >> >> If it's exclusively mapped, then folio_mapcount(folio)==1. In which case >> the previous statement: >> >> if (mapcount <= 1) >> return false; >> >> Catches it. > > You're right! > >> >> IOW, once we reach this point we now that folio_mapcount(folio) > 1, and >> there must be something else besides the entire mapping ("more than once"). >> >> >> Or did I not address your concern? > > Sorry, my mistake :( No worries, thanks for the review and thinking this through!
On 4/10/2024 3:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > @@ -2200,7 +2200,22 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio *folio) > */ > static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) > { > - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; > + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); > + > + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ > + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) > + return mapcount > 1; My understanding is that mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio) can cover order 0 folio. And also folio_entire_mapcount() can cover hugetlb (I am not 100% sure for this one). I am wondering whether we can drop above two lines? Thanks. Regards Yin, Fengwei > + > + /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */ > + if (mapcount <= 1) > + return false; > + > + /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */ > + if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio)) > + return true; > + > + /* Let's guess based on the first subpage. */ > + return atomic_read(&folio->_mapcount) > 0; > }
On 19.04.24 04:29, Yin, Fengwei wrote: > > > On 4/10/2024 3:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> @@ -2200,7 +2200,22 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio *folio) >> */ >> static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) >> { >> - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; >> + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); >> + >> + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ >> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) >> + return mapcount > 1; > My understanding is that mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio) can cover > order 0 folio. And also folio_entire_mapcount() can cover hugetlb (I am > not 100% sure for this one). I am wondering whether we can drop above > two lines? Thanks. folio_entire_mapcount() does not apply to small folios, so we must not call that for small folios. Regarding hugetlb, subpage mapcounts are completely unused, except subpage 0 mapcount, which is now *always* negative (storing a page type) -- so there is no trusting on that value at all. So in the end, it all looked cleanest when only special-casing on partially-mappable folios where we know the entire mapcount exists and we know that subapge mapcount 0 actually stores something reasonable (not a type). Thanks!
On 4/19/2024 5:19 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 19.04.24 04:29, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >> >> >> On 4/10/2024 3:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> @@ -2200,7 +2200,22 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio >>> *folio) >>> */ >>> static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) >>> { >>> - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; >>> + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); >>> + >>> + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ >>> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || >>> unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) >>> + return mapcount > 1; >> My understanding is that mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio) can cover >> order 0 folio. And also folio_entire_mapcount() can cover hugetlb (I am >> not 100% sure for this one). I am wondering whether we can drop above >> two lines? Thanks. > > folio_entire_mapcount() does not apply to small folios, so we must not > call that for small folios. Right. I missed this part. Thanks for clarification. Regards Yin, Fengwei > > Regarding hugetlb, subpage mapcounts are completely unused, except > subpage 0 mapcount, which is now *always* negative (storing a page type) > -- so there is no trusting on that value at all. > > So in the end, it all looked cleanest when only special-casing on > partially-mappable folios where we know the entire mapcount exists and > we know that subapge mapcount 0 actually stores something reasonable > (not a type). > > Thanks! >
On 19.04.24 15:47, Yin, Fengwei wrote: > > > On 4/19/2024 5:19 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 19.04.24 04:29, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 4/10/2024 3:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> @@ -2200,7 +2200,22 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio >>>> *folio) >>>> */ >>>> static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) >>>> { >>>> - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; >>>> + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); >>>> + >>>> + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ >>>> + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || >>>> unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) >>>> + return mapcount > 1; >>> My understanding is that mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio) can cover >>> order 0 folio. And also folio_entire_mapcount() can cover hugetlb (I am >>> not 100% sure for this one). I am wondering whether we can drop above >>> two lines? Thanks. >> >> folio_entire_mapcount() does not apply to small folios, so we must not >> call that for small folios. > Right. I missed this part. Thanks for clarification. Thanks for the review!
On 4/10/2024 3:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > We can now read the mapcount of large folios very efficiently. Use it to > improve our handling of partially-mappable folios, falling back > to making a guess only in case the folio is not "obviously mapped shared". > > We can now better detect partially-mappable folios where the first page is > not mapped as "mapped shared", reducing "false negatives"; but false > negatives are still possible. > > While at it, fixup a wrong comment (false positive vs. false negative) > for KSM folios. > > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h index 1862a216af15..daf687f0e8e5 100644 --- a/include/linux/mm.h +++ b/include/linux/mm.h @@ -2183,7 +2183,7 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio *folio) * indicate "mapped shared" (false positive) when two VMAs in the same MM * cover the same file range. * #. For (small) KSM folios, the return value can wrongly indicate "mapped - * shared" (false negative), when the folio is mapped multiple times into + * shared" (false positive), when the folio is mapped multiple times into * the same MM. * * Further, this function only considers current page table mappings that @@ -2200,7 +2200,22 @@ static inline size_t folio_size(struct folio *folio) */ static inline bool folio_likely_mapped_shared(struct folio *folio) { - return page_mapcount(folio_page(folio, 0)) > 1; + int mapcount = folio_mapcount(folio); + + /* Only partially-mappable folios require more care. */ + if (!folio_test_large(folio) || unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio))) + return mapcount > 1; + + /* A single mapping implies "mapped exclusively". */ + if (mapcount <= 1) + return false; + + /* If any page is mapped more than once we treat it "mapped shared". */ + if (folio_entire_mapcount(folio) || mapcount > folio_nr_pages(folio)) + return true; + + /* Let's guess based on the first subpage. */ + return atomic_read(&folio->_mapcount) > 0; } #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_MAKE_PAGE_ACCESSIBLE
We can now read the mapcount of large folios very efficiently. Use it to improve our handling of partially-mappable folios, falling back to making a guess only in case the folio is not "obviously mapped shared". We can now better detect partially-mappable folios where the first page is not mapped as "mapped shared", reducing "false negatives"; but false negatives are still possible. While at it, fixup a wrong comment (false positive vs. false negative) for KSM folios. Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> --- include/linux/mm.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)