[PATCH 2/4] mm: speed up mremap by 500x on large regions (v2)
bsingharora at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 15:40:02 PDT 2018
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:39:17PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Balbir,
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:21:02PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 07:13:50PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:57:33PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > > + pmd_t pmd;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + new_ptl = pmd_lockptr(mm, new_pmd);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Looks like this is largely inspired by move_huge_pmd(), I guess a lot of
> > > > the code applies, why not just reuse as much as possible? The same comments
> > > > w.r.t mmap_sem helping protect against lock order issues applies as well.
> > >
> > > I thought about this and when I looked into it, it seemed there are subtle
> > > differences that make such sharing not worth it (or not possible).
> > >
> > Could you elaborate on them?
> The move_huge_page function is defined only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> so we cannot reuse it to begin with, since we have it disabled on our
> systems. I am not sure if it is a good idea to split that out and refactor it
> for reuse especially since our case is quite simple compared to huge pages.
> There are also a couple of subtle differences between the move_normal_pmd and
> the move_huge_pmd. Atleast 2 of them are:
> 1. We don't concern ourself with the PMD dirty bit, since the pages being
> moved are normal pages and at the soft-dirty bit accounting is at the PTE
> level, since we are not moving PTEs, we don't need to do that.
> 2. The locking is simpler as Kirill pointed, pmd_lock cannot fail however
> __pmd_trans_huge_lock can.
> I feel it is not super useful to refactor move_huge_pmd to support our case
> especially since move_normal_pmd is quite small, so IMHO the benefit of code
> reuse isn't there very much.
My big concern is that any bug fixes will need to monitor both paths.
Do you see a big overhead in checking the soft dirty bit? The locking is
a little different. Having said that, I am not strictly opposed to the
extra code, just concerned about missing fixes/updates as we find them.
> Do let me know your thoughts and thanks for your interest in this.
More information about the linux-riscv