On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 11:04:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

The reason for the low liklihood is that the current readahead algorithm
starts with an order-2 folio and increases the folio order by 2 every
time the readahead mark is hit. But most executable memory is faulted in
fairly randomly and so the readahead mark is rarely hit and most
executable folios remain order-2.

Yup, this is a bug in the readahead code, and really has nothing to
do with executable files, mmap or the architecture.  We don't want
some magic new VM_EXEC min folio size per architecture thingy to be
set - we just want readahead to do the right thing.

Indeed, we are already adding a mapping minimum folio order
directive to the address space to allow for filesystem block sizes
greater than PAGE_SIZE. That's the generic mechanism that this
functionality requires. See here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240213093713.1753368-5-kernel@pankajraghav.com/ (local)

(Probably worth reading some of the other readahead mods in that
series and the discussion because readahead needs to ensure that it
fill entire high order folios in a single IO to avoid partial folio
up-to-date states from partial reads.)

IOWs, it seems to me that we could use this proposed generic mapping
min order functionality when mmap() is run and VM_EXEC is set to set
the min order to, say, 64kB. Then the readahead code would simply do
the right thing, as would all other reads and writes to that
mapping.

We could trigger this in the ->mmap() method of the filesystem so
that filesysetms that can use large folios can turn it on, whilst
other filesystems remain blissfully unaware of the functionality.
Filesystems could also do smarter things here, too. eg. enable PMD
alignment for large mapped files....

We already enable PMD alignment for large mapped files (which caused
some shrieking from those who believe that ASLR continues to offer
worthwhile protection), commit efa7df3e3bb5.

My problem with your minimum order proposal is that it would be a
hard failure if we couldn't get an order-4 folio.  I think we'd do
better to set the ra_state parameters to 64KiB at mmap time (and I
think that's better done in the MM, not in each FS)

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel