Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] mm: Support batched unmap for lazyfree large folios during reclamation
From: Harry Yoo <hidden>
Date: 2025-07-01 10:04:43
Also in:
linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 10:30:14PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
From: Barry Song <redacted>
Currently, the PTEs and rmap of a large folio are removed one at a time.
This is not only slow but also causes the large folio to be unnecessarily
added to deferred_split, which can lead to races between the
deferred_split shrinker callback and memory reclamation. This patch
releases all PTEs and rmap entries in a batch.
Currently, it only handles lazyfree large folios.
The below microbench tries to reclaim 128MB lazyfree large folios
whose sizes are 64KiB:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <time.h>
#define SIZE 128*1024*1024 // 128 MB
unsigned long read_split_deferred()
{
FILE *file = fopen("/sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage"
"/hugepages-64kB/stats/split_deferred", "r");
if (!file) {
perror("Error opening file");
return 0;
}
unsigned long value;
if (fscanf(file, "%lu", &value) != 1) {
perror("Error reading value");
fclose(file);
return 0;
}
fclose(file);
return value;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
while(1) {
volatile int *p = mmap(0, SIZE, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
memset((void *)p, 1, SIZE);
madvise((void *)p, SIZE, MADV_FREE);
clock_t start_time = clock();
unsigned long start_split = read_split_deferred();
madvise((void *)p, SIZE, MADV_PAGEOUT);
clock_t end_time = clock();
unsigned long end_split = read_split_deferred();
double elapsed_time = (double)(end_time - start_time) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("Time taken by reclamation: %f seconds, split_deferred: %ld\n",
elapsed_time, end_split - start_split);
munmap((void *)p, SIZE);
}
return 0;
}
w/o patch:
~ # ./a.out
Time taken by reclamation: 0.177418 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.178348 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.174525 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.171620 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.172241 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.174003 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.171058 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.171993 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.169829 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.172895 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.176063 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.172568 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.171185 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.170632 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.170208 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
Time taken by reclamation: 0.174192 seconds, split_deferred: 2048
...
w/ patch:
~ # ./a.out
Time taken by reclamation: 0.074231 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071026 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.072029 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071873 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.073573 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071906 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.073604 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.075903 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.073191 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071228 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071391 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071468 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071896 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.072508 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071884 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.072433 seconds, split_deferred: 0
Time taken by reclamation: 0.071939 seconds, split_deferred: 0
...
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <redacted>
---I'm still following the long discussions and follow-up patch series, but let me ask a possibly silly question here :)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
mm/rmap.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c index 89e51a7a9509..8786704bd466 100644 --- a/mm/rmap.c +++ b/mm/rmap.c@@ -1933,23 +1953,26 @@ static bool try_to_unmap_one(struct folio *folio, struct vm_area_struct *vma, if (pte_dirty(pteval)) folio_mark_dirty(folio); } else if (likely(pte_present(pteval))) { - flush_cache_page(vma, address, pfn); - /* Nuke the page table entry. */ - if (should_defer_flush(mm, flags)) { - /* - * We clear the PTE but do not flush so potentially - * a remote CPU could still be writing to the folio. - * If the entry was previously clean then the - * architecture must guarantee that a clear->dirty - * transition on a cached TLB entry is written through - * and traps if the PTE is unmapped. - */ - pteval = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, address, pvmw.pte); + if (folio_test_large(folio) && !(flags & TTU_HWPOISON) && + can_batch_unmap_folio_ptes(address, folio, pvmw.pte)) + nr_pages = folio_nr_pages(folio); + end_addr = address + nr_pages * PAGE_SIZE; + flush_cache_range(vma, address, end_addr); - set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm, pteval, address, address + PAGE_SIZE); - } else { - pteval = ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, pvmw.pte); - } + /* Nuke the page table entry. */ + pteval = get_and_clear_full_ptes(mm, address, pvmw.pte, nr_pages, 0); + /* + * We clear the PTE but do not flush so potentially + * a remote CPU could still be writing to the folio. + * If the entry was previously clean then the + * architecture must guarantee that a clear->dirty + * transition on a cached TLB entry is written through + * and traps if the PTE is unmapped. + */ + if (should_defer_flush(mm, flags)) + set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending(mm, pteval, address, end_addr);
When the first pte of a PTE-mapped THP has _PAGE_PROTNONE bit set (by NUMA balancing), can set_tlb_ubc_flush_pending() mistakenly think that it doesn't need to flush the whole range, although some ptes in the range doesn't have _PAGE_PROTNONE bit set?
+ else
+ flush_tlb_range(vma, address, end_addr);
if (pte_dirty(pteval))
folio_mark_dirty(folio);
} else {-- Cheers, Harry / Hyeonggon