Re: [PATCH 0/4] arm64/mm: contpte-sized exec folios for 16K and 64K pages
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-03-18 12:41:20
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml
On 3/18/26 11:41, Usama Arif wrote:
On 16/03/2026 19:06, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:quoted
On 3/13/26 20:59, Usama Arif wrote:quoted
So I see 2 benefits from this. Page fault and iTLB coverage. IMHO page faults are not that big of a deal? If the text section is hot, it wont get flushed after faulting in. So the real benefit comes from improved iTLB coverage. For a 128M mapping, 2M alignment gives 64 contpte entries. Aligning to something larger (say 128M) wouldn't give any additional TLB coalescing, each 2M-aligned region independently qualifies for contpte. Mappings smaller than 2M can't benefit from contpte regardless of alignment, so falling back to PAGE_SIZE would be the optimal behaviour. Adding intermediate sizes (e.g. 512K, 128K) wouldn't map to any hardware boundary and adds complexity without TLB benefit?I might be wrong, but I think you are mixing two things here: (1) "Minimum" folio size (exec_folio_order()) (2) VMA alignment. (2) should certainly be as large as (1), but assume we can get a 2M folio on arm64 4k, why shouldn't we align it to 2M if the region is reasonably sized, and use a PMD?So this series is tackling both (1) and (2). When I started making changes to the code, what I wanted was 2M folios at fault with 64K base page size to reduce iTLB misses. This is what patch 1 (and 2) will achieve. Yes, completely agree, (2) should be as large as (1). I didn't think about PMD size on 4K which you pointed out. do_sync_mmap_readahead can give that with force_thp_readahead, so this should be supported.
In particular, imagine if hw starts optimizing transparently on other granularity, then the "smallest granularity" (exec_folio_order()) decision will soon be wrong.
But we shouldn't align to PMD size for all base page sizes. As Rui pointed out, increasing alignment size reduces ASLR entropy [1]. Should we max alignement to 2M?
That's why I said that likely, as an input, we'd want to use the mapping size or other heuristics. We wouldn't want to align a 4k mapping to either 64k or 2M. Long story short: the change in thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() needs some thought IMHO. -- Cheers, David