[PATCH 0/4] arm64/mm: contpte-sized exec folios for 16K and 64K pages

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 3/10/26 15:51, Usama Arif wrote:
> On arm64, the contpte hardware feature coalesces multiple contiguous PTEs
> into a single iTLB entry, reducing iTLB pressure for large executable
> mappings.
> 
> exec_folio_order() was introduced [1] to request readahead at an
> arch-preferred folio order for executable memory, enabling contpte
> mapping on the fault path.
> 
> However, several things prevent this from working optimally on 16K and
> 64K page configurations:
> 
> 1. exec_folio_order() returns ilog2(SZ_64K >> PAGE_SHIFT), which only
>    produces the optimal contpte order for 4K pages. For 16K pages it
>    returns order 2 (64K) instead of order 7 (2M), and for 64K pages it
>    returns order 0 (64K) instead of order 5 (2M). Patch 1 fixes this by
>    using ilog2(CONT_PTES) which evaluates to the optimal order for all
>    page sizes.
> 
> 2. Even with the optimal order, the mmap_miss heuristic in
>    do_sync_mmap_readahead() silently disables exec readahead after 100
>    page faults. The mmap_miss counter tracks whether readahead is useful
>    for mmap'd file access:
> 
>    - Incremented by 1 in do_sync_mmap_readahead() on every page cache
>      miss (page needed IO).
> 
>    - Decremented by N in filemap_map_pages() for N pages successfully
>      mapped via fault-around (pages found in cache without faulting,
>      evidence that readahead was useful). Only non-workingset pages
>      count and recently evicted and re-read pages don't count as hits.
> 
>    - Decremented by 1 in do_async_mmap_readahead() when a PG_readahead
>      marker page is found (indicates sequential consumption of readahead
>      pages).
> 
>    When mmap_miss exceeds MMAP_LOTSAMISS (100), all readahead is
>    disabled. On 64K pages, both decrement paths are inactive:
> 
>    - filemap_map_pages() is never called because fault_around_pages
>      (65536 >> PAGE_SHIFT = 1) disables should_fault_around(), which
>      requires fault_around_pages > 1. With only 1 page in the
>      fault-around window, there is nothing "around" to map.
> 
>    - do_async_mmap_readahead() never fires for exec mappings because
>      exec readahead sets async_size = 0, so no PG_readahead markers
>      are placed.
> 
>    With no decrements, mmap_miss monotonically increases past
>    MMAP_LOTSAMISS after 100 faults, disabling exec readahead
>    for the remainder of the mapping.
>    Patch 2 fixes this by moving the VM_EXEC readahead block
>    above the mmap_miss check, since exec readahead is targeted (one
>    folio at the fault location, async_size=0) not speculative prefetch.
> 
> 3. Even with correct folio order and readahead, contpte mapping requires
>    the virtual address to be aligned to CONT_PTE_SIZE (2M on 64K pages).
>    The readahead path aligns file offsets and the buddy allocator aligns
>    physical memory, but the virtual address depends on the VMA start.
>    For PIE binaries, ASLR randomizes the load address at PAGE_SIZE (64K)
>    granularity, giving only a 1/32 chance of 2M alignment. When
>    misaligned, contpte_set_ptes() never sets the contiguous PTE bit for
>    any folio in the VMA, resulting in zero iTLB coalescing benefit.
> 
>    Patch 3 fixes this for the main binary by bumping the ELF loader's
>    alignment to PAGE_SIZE << exec_folio_order() for ET_DYN binaries.
> 
>    Patch 4 fixes this for shared libraries by adding a contpte-size
>    alignment fallback in thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags(). The existing
>    PMD_SIZE alignment (512M on 64K pages) is too large for typical shared
>    libraries, so this smaller fallback (2M) succeeds where PMD fails.
> 
> I created a benchmark that mmaps a large executable file and calls
> RET-stub functions at PAGE_SIZE offsets across it. "Cold" measures
> fault + readahead cost. "Random" first faults in all pages with a
> sequential sweep (not measured), then measures time for calling random
> offsets, isolating iTLB miss cost for scattered execution.
> 
> The benchmark results on Neoverse V2 (Grace), arm64 with 64K base pages,
> 512MB executable file on ext4, averaged over 3 runs:
> 
>   Phase      | Baseline     | Patched      | Improvement
>   -----------|--------------|--------------|------------------
>   Cold fault | 83.4 ms      | 41.3 ms      | 50% faster
>   Random     | 76.0 ms      | 58.3 ms      | 23% faster

I'm curious: is a single order really what we want?

I'd instead assume that we might want to make decisions based on the
mapping size.

Assume you have a 128M mapping, wouldn't we want to use a different
alignment than, say, for a 1M mapping, a 128K mapping or a 8k mapping?

-- 
Cheers,

David