diff mbox series

[v2,1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch()

Message ID 20240603140745.83880-1-ioworker0@gmail.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series [v2,1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch() | expand

Commit Message

Lance Yang June 3, 2024, 2:07 p.m. UTC 
Let's make folio_mlock_step() simply a wrapper around folio_pte_batch(),
which will greatly reduce the cost of ptep_get() when scanning a range of
contptes.

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Suggested-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
 - Remove the likely() hint (per Matthew)
 - Keep type declarations at the beginning of the function (per Matthew)
 - Make a minimum change (per Barry)
 - Pick RB from Baolin - thanks!
 - Pick AB from David - thanks!

 mm/mlock.c | 19 ++++---------------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

Comments

Matthew Wilcox June 3, 2024, 2:43 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>  static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>  		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>  {
> -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
problem entirely?

folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
Lance Yang June 3, 2024, 2:55 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:43 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> > @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >  static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> >               pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> >  {
> > -     unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > -     unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> > +     const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> > +     unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> problem entirely?

Good catch! Thanks for pointing that out!
Let's use an unsigned long here instead to avoid the problem entirely :)

Thanks,
Lance

>
> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>
David Hildenbrand June 3, 2024, 2:56 p.m. UTC | #3 
On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>>   static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>>   		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>>   {
>> -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>> -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
>> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> 
> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> problem entirely?
> 
> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().

Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users 
like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should 
really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is 
unfortunate.
Matthew Wilcox June 3, 2024, 3:01 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:56:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> > > +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> > > @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > >   static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> > >   		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> > >   {
> > > -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > > -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> > > +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> > > +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > 
> > This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> > system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> > that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> > problem entirely?
> > 
> > folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> > case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
> 
> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> unfortunate.

You did include:

        VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);

so at the least we have a userspace-triggerable warning.
Lance Yang June 3, 2024, 3:08 p.m. UTC | #5 
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:56 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >>   static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> >>              pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> >>   {
> >> -    unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >> -    unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> >> +    const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >> +    unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> > system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> > that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> > problem entirely?
> >
> > folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> > case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>
> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> unfortunate.

Could I change folio_pte_batch() to take an unsigned long max_nr?

Thanks,
Lance

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
David Hildenbrand June 3, 2024, 3:26 p.m. UTC | #6 
On 03.06.24 17:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:56:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>>>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>>>>    static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>>>>    		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>>>> -	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
>>>> +	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>>>> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
>>> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
>>> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
>>> problem entirely?
>>>
>>> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
>>> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>>
>> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
>> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
>> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
>> unfortunate.
> 
> You did include:
> 
>          VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
> 
> so at the least we have a userspace-triggerable warning.

Yes, and max_nr == 0 would likely not be healthy to the system.

But

For copy_pte_range(), zap_pte_range() and the madvise users, we should 
always have:
	next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);

and use "next" as the actual "end" -- not the VMA end. So "end - addr" = 
"next - addr" should never exceed a single PMD size.


mlock_pte_range() is also called from walk_page_range(), which uses
	next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);

So likely exceeding PMD size is not possible here and all is working as 
expected.

Will double check later.
David Hildenbrand June 3, 2024, 3:27 p.m. UTC | #7 
On 03.06.24 17:08, Lance Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:56 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>>>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>>>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>>>>    static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>>>>               pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>>>>    {
>>>> -    unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>>>> -    unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
>>>> +    const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>>>> +    unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>>>
>>> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
>>> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
>>> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
>>> problem entirely?
>>>
>>> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
>>> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>>
>> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
>> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
>> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
>> unfortunate.
> 
> Could I change folio_pte_batch() to take an unsigned long max_nr?

It might be more future proof; see my other mail, I think currently all 
is fine, because "end" is not the end of the VMA but the end of the PMD. 
Please double-check.
Lance Yang June 3, 2024, 3:46 p.m. UTC | #8 
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:26 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 03.06.24 17:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:56:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >>>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >>>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >>>>    static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> >>>>                    pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> >>>>    {
> >>>> -  unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >>>> -  unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> >>>> +  const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> >>>> +  unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>>
> >>> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> >>> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> >>> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> >>> problem entirely?
> >>>
> >>> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> >>> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
> >>
> >> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> >> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> >> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> >> unfortunate.
> >
> > You did include:
> >
> >          VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
> >
> > so at the least we have a userspace-triggerable warning.
>
> Yes, and max_nr == 0 would likely not be healthy to the system.
>
> But
>
> For copy_pte_range(), zap_pte_range() and the madvise users, we should
> always have:
>         next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>
> and use "next" as the actual "end" -- not the VMA end. So "end - addr" =
> "next - addr" should never exceed a single PMD size.
>
>
> mlock_pte_range() is also called from walk_page_range(), which uses
>         next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>
> So likely exceeding PMD size is not possible here and all is working as
> expected.

Thanks for clarifying!

I agree that currently all is fine, so perhaps we don't worry about that :)

>
> Will double check later.

I did a double-check and you're correct.

Thanks,
Lance

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
Barry Song June 3, 2024, 9 p.m. UTC | #9 
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:46 AM Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:26 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 03.06.24 17:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 04:56:05PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > >> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >>> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> > >>>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> > >>>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> > >>>>    static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> > >>>>                    pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> > >>>>    {
> > >>>> -  unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
> > >>>> -  unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
> > >>>> +  const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
> > >>>> +  unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> > >>> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> > >>> that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> > >>> problem entirely?
> > >>>
> > >>> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> > >>> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> > >> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> > >> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> > >> unfortunate.
> > >
> > > You did include:
> > >
> > >          VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
> > >
> > > so at the least we have a userspace-triggerable warning.
> >
> > Yes, and max_nr == 0 would likely not be healthy to the system.
> >
> > But
> >
> > For copy_pte_range(), zap_pte_range() and the madvise users, we should
> > always have:
> >         next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> >
> > and use "next" as the actual "end" -- not the VMA end. So "end - addr" =
> > "next - addr" should never exceed a single PMD size.
> >
> >
> > mlock_pte_range() is also called from walk_page_range(), which uses
> >         next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
> >
> > So likely exceeding PMD size is not possible here and all is working as
> > expected.
>
> Thanks for clarifying!
>
> I agree that currently all is fine, so perhaps we don't worry about that :)

I agree with this point.

These functions are all scanning PTEs under a PMD. Any value exceeding
the PTE entries of one PMD has been a bug of callers but not the callee.

>
> >
> > Will double check later.
>
> I did a double-check and you're correct.
>
> Thanks,
> Lance
>
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David / dhildenb
> >

Thanks
Barry
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
index 30b51cdea89d..52d6e401ad67 100644
--- a/mm/mlock.c
+++ b/mm/mlock.c
@@ -307,26 +307,15 @@  void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
 static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
 		pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
 {
-	unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
-	unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
+	const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
+	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
 	pte_t ptent = ptep_get(pte);
 
 	if (!folio_test_large(folio))
 		return 1;
 
-	count = pfn + nr - pte_pfn(ptent);
-	count = min_t(unsigned int, count, (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
-
-	for (i = 0; i < count; i++, pte++) {
-		pte_t entry = ptep_get(pte);
-
-		if (!pte_present(entry))
-			break;
-		if (pte_pfn(entry) - pfn >= nr)
-			break;
-	}
-
-	return i;
+	return folio_pte_batch(folio, addr, pte, ptent, count, fpb_flags, NULL,
+			       NULL, NULL);
 }
 
 static inline bool allow_mlock_munlock(struct folio *folio,