Re: [PATCH v3 12/12] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Date: 2024-03-22 15:55:19
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, linux-riscv, lkml
Jason, On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:30:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 06:08:02PM -0400, peterx@redhat.com wrote:quoted
A quick performance test on an aarch64 VM on M1 chip shows 15% degrade over a tight loop of slow gup after the path switched. That shouldn't be a problem because slow-gup should not be a hot path for GUP in general: when page is commonly present, fast-gup will already succeed, while when the page is indeed missing and require a follow up page fault, the slow gup degrade will probably buried in the fault paths anyway. It also explains why slow gup for THP used to be very slow before 57edfcfd3419 ("mm/gup: accelerate thp gup even for "pages != NULL"") lands, the latter not part of a performance analysis but a side benefit. If the performance will be a concern, we can consider handle CONT_PTE in follow_page().I think this is probably fine for the moment, at least for this series, as CONT_PTE is still very new. But it will need to be optimized. "slow" GUP is the only GUP that is used by FOLL_LONGTERM and it still needs to be optimized because you can't assume a FOLL_LONGTERM user will be hitting the really slow fault path. There are enough important cases where it is just reading already populted page tables, and these days, often with large folios.
Ah, I thought FOLL_LONGTERM should work in most cases for fast-gup, especially for hugetlb, but maybe I missed something? I do see that devmap skips fast-gup for LONGTERM, we also have that writeback issue but none of those that I can find applies to hugetlb. This might be a problem indeed if we have hugetlb cont_pte pages that will constantly fallback to slow gup. OTOH, I also agree with you that such batching would be nice to have for slow-gup, likely devmap or many fs (exclude shmem/hugetlb) file mappings can at least benefit from it due to above. But then that'll be a more generic issue to solve, IOW, we still don't do that for !hugetlb cont_pte large folios, before or after this series.
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
Thanks! -- Peter Xu