[PATCH v5 0/7] Optimize mprotect() for large folios

[Lorenzo Stoakes]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 03:20:16PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 18/07/25 2:32 pm, Dev Jain wrote:
> > Use folio_pte_batch() to optimize change_pte_range(). On arm64, if the ptes
> > are painted with the contig bit, then ptep_get() will iterate through all
> > 16 entries to collect a/d bits. Hence this optimization will result in
> > a 16x reduction in the number of ptep_get() calls. Next,
> > ptep_modify_prot_start() will eventually call contpte_try_unfold() on
> > every contig block, thus flushing the TLB for the complete large folio
> > range. Instead, use get_and_clear_full_ptes() so as to elide TLBIs on
> > each contig block, and only do them on the starting and ending
> > contig block.
> >
> > For split folios, there will be no pte batching; the batch size returned
> > by folio_pte_batch() will be 1. For pagetable split folios, the ptes will
> > still point to the same large folio; for arm64, this results in the
> > optimization described above, and for other arches, a minor improvement
> > is expected due to a reduction in the number of function calls.
> >
> > mm-selftests pass on arm64. I have some failing tests on my x86 VM already;
> > no new tests fail as a result of this patchset.
> >
> > We use the following test cases to measure performance, mprotect()'ing
> > the mapped memory to read-only then read-write 40 times:
> >
> > Test case 1: Mapping 1G of memory, touching it to get PMD-THPs, then
> > pte-mapping those THPs
> > Test case 2: Mapping 1G of memory with 64K mTHPs
> > Test case 3: Mapping 1G of memory with 4K pages
> >
> > Average execution time on arm64, Apple M3:
> > Before the patchset:
> > T1: 2.1 seconds   T2: 2 seconds   T3: 1 second
> >
> > After the patchset:
> > T1: 0.65 seconds   T2: 0.7 seconds   T3: 1.1 seconds
> >
>
> For the note: the numbers are different from the previous versions.
> I must have run the test for more number of iterations and then
> pasted the test program here for 40 iterations, that's why the mismatch.
>

Thanks for this clarification!