mm/userfaultfd.c | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 153 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
~20% in vm_normal_folio().
With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
includes TLB-flush overhead.
When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
arm64 android device.
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
---
Chagnes since v4 [1]
- Replaced 'err' with 'ret' in move_pages_ptes(), per Barry Song
- Use pmd_addr_end() for calculating largest extent that can be
batched under the same src and dst PTLs, per Barry Song
- Add a description comment for move_present_ptes() explaining what
conditions are to be met by folios to be batched, per Barry Song
Changes since v3 [2]
- Fix unintialized 'step_size' warning, per Dan Carpenter
- Removed pmd_none() from check_ptes_for_batched_move(), per Peter Xu
- Removed flush_cache_range() in zero-page case, per Peter Xu
- Added comment to explain why folio reference for batched pages is not
required, per Peter Xu
- Use MIN() in calculation of largest extent that can be batched under
the same src and dst PTLs, per Peter Xu
- Release first folio's reference in move_present_ptes(), per Peter Xu
Changes since v2 [3]
- Addressed VM_WARN_ON failure, per Lorenzo Stoakes
- Added check to ensure all batched pages share the same anon_vma
Changes since v1 [4]
- Removed flush_tlb_batched_pending(), per Barry Song
- Unified single and multi page case, per Barry Song
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250810062912.1096815-1-lokeshgidra@google.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250807103902.2242717-1-lokeshgidra@google.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250805121410.1658418-1-lokeshgidra@google.com/
[4] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250731104726.103071-1-lokeshgidra@google.com/
mm/userfaultfd.c | 227 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 153 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
index 45e6290e2e8b..589294994f98 100644
--- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -1026,18 +1026,67 @@ static inline bool is_pte_pages_stable(pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
pmd_same(dst_pmdval, pmdp_get_lockless(dst_pmd));
}
-static int move_present_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
- struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
- struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
- unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
- pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
- pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
- pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
- spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
- struct folio *src_folio)
+/*
+ * Checks if the two ptes and the corresponding folio are eligible for batched
+ * move. If so, then returns pointer to the locked folio. Otherwise, returns NULL.
+ *
+ * NOTE: folio's reference is not required as the whole operation is within
+ * PTL's critical section.
+ */
+static struct folio *check_ptes_for_batched_move(struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+ unsigned long src_addr,
+ pte_t *src_pte, pte_t *dst_pte,
+ struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
{
- int err = 0;
+ pte_t orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte;
+ struct folio *folio;
+
+ orig_dst_pte = ptep_get(dst_pte);
+ if (!pte_none(orig_dst_pte))
+ return NULL;
+
+ orig_src_pte = ptep_get(src_pte);
+ if (!pte_present(orig_src_pte) || is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(orig_src_pte)))
+ return NULL;
+
+ folio = vm_normal_folio(src_vma, src_addr, orig_src_pte);
+ if (!folio || !folio_trylock(folio))
+ return NULL;
+ if (!PageAnonExclusive(&folio->page) || folio_test_large(folio) ||
+ folio_anon_vma(folio) != src_anon_vma) {
+ folio_unlock(folio);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ return folio;
+}
+/*
+ * Moves src folios to dst in a batch as long as they share the same
+ * anon_vma as the first folio, are not large, and can successfully
+ * take the lock via folio_trylock().
+ */
+static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
+ struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
+ struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+ unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
+ pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
+ pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
+ pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
+ spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
+ struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
+ struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
+{
+ int err = 0;
+ struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
+ unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
+ unsigned long src_end;
+
+ if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
+ len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
+ src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
+ } else
+ src_end = src_addr + len;
+ flush_cache_range(src_vma, src_addr, src_end);
double_pt_lock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
if (!is_pte_pages_stable(dst_pte, src_pte, orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte,
@@ -1051,31 +1100,56 @@ static int move_present_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
err = -EBUSY;
goto out;
}
+ /* It's safe to drop the reference now as the page-table is holding one. */
+ folio_put(*first_src_folio);
+ *first_src_folio = NULL;
+ arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
+
+ while (true) {
+ orig_src_pte = ptep_get_and_clear(mm, src_addr, src_pte);
+ /* Folio got pinned from under us. Put it back and fail the move. */
+ if (folio_maybe_dma_pinned(src_folio)) {
+ set_pte_at(mm, src_addr, src_pte, orig_src_pte);
+ err = -EBUSY;
+ break;
+ }
- orig_src_pte = ptep_clear_flush(src_vma, src_addr, src_pte);
- /* Folio got pinned from under us. Put it back and fail the move. */
- if (folio_maybe_dma_pinned(src_folio)) {
- set_pte_at(mm, src_addr, src_pte, orig_src_pte);
- err = -EBUSY;
- goto out;
- }
-
- folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
- src_folio->index = linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr);
+ folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
+ src_folio->index = linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr);
- orig_dst_pte = folio_mk_pte(src_folio, dst_vma->vm_page_prot);
- /* Set soft dirty bit so userspace can notice the pte was moved */
+ orig_dst_pte = folio_mk_pte(src_folio, dst_vma->vm_page_prot);
+ /* Set soft dirty bit so userspace can notice the pte was moved */
#ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY
- orig_dst_pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(orig_dst_pte);
+ orig_dst_pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(orig_dst_pte);
#endif
- if (pte_dirty(orig_src_pte))
- orig_dst_pte = pte_mkdirty(orig_dst_pte);
- orig_dst_pte = pte_mkwrite(orig_dst_pte, dst_vma);
+ if (pte_dirty(orig_src_pte))
+ orig_dst_pte = pte_mkdirty(orig_dst_pte);
+ orig_dst_pte = pte_mkwrite(orig_dst_pte, dst_vma);
+ set_pte_at(mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, orig_dst_pte);
+
+ src_addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ if (src_addr == src_end)
+ break;
+ dst_addr += PAGE_SIZE;
+ dst_pte++;
+ src_pte++;
- set_pte_at(mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, orig_dst_pte);
+ folio_unlock(src_folio);
+ src_folio = check_ptes_for_batched_move(src_vma, src_addr, src_pte,
+ dst_pte, src_anon_vma);
+ if (!src_folio)
+ break;
+ }
+
+ arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
+ if (src_addr > src_start)
+ flush_tlb_range(src_vma, src_start, src_addr);
+
+ if (src_folio)
+ folio_unlock(src_folio);
out:
double_pt_unlock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
- return err;
+ return src_addr > src_start ? src_addr - src_start : err;
}
static int move_swap_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
@@ -1140,7 +1214,7 @@ static int move_swap_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
set_pte_at(mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, orig_src_pte);
double_pt_unlock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
- return 0;
+ return PAGE_SIZE;
}
static int move_zeropage_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
@@ -1167,20 +1241,20 @@ static int move_zeropage_pte(struct mm_struct *mm,
set_pte_at(mm, dst_addr, dst_pte, zero_pte);
double_pt_unlock(dst_ptl, src_ptl);
- return 0;
+ return PAGE_SIZE;
}
/*
- * The mmap_lock for reading is held by the caller. Just move the page
- * from src_pmd to dst_pmd if possible, and return true if succeeded
- * in moving the page.
+ * The mmap_lock for reading is held by the caller. Just move the page(s)
+ * from src_pmd to dst_pmd if possible, and return number of bytes moved.
+ * On failure, an error code is returned.
*/
-static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
- struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
- struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
- unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
- __u64 mode)
+static long move_pages_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
+ struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
+ struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
+ unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
+ unsigned long len, __u64 mode)
{
swp_entry_t entry;
struct swap_info_struct *si = NULL;
@@ -1194,11 +1268,10 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
struct folio *src_folio = NULL;
struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma = NULL;
struct mmu_notifier_range range;
- int err = 0;
+ long ret = 0;
- flush_cache_range(src_vma, src_addr, src_addr + PAGE_SIZE);
mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, mm,
- src_addr, src_addr + PAGE_SIZE);
+ src_addr, src_addr + len);
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
retry:
/*
@@ -1212,7 +1285,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
/* Retry if a huge pmd materialized from under us */
if (unlikely(!dst_pte)) {
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
@@ -1231,14 +1304,14 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
* transparent huge pages under us.
*/
if (unlikely(!src_pte)) {
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
/* Sanity checks before the operation */
if (pmd_none(*dst_pmd) || pmd_none(*src_pmd) ||
pmd_trans_huge(*dst_pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(*src_pmd)) {
- err = -EINVAL;
+ ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
@@ -1246,7 +1319,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
orig_dst_pte = ptep_get(dst_pte);
spin_unlock(dst_ptl);
if (!pte_none(orig_dst_pte)) {
- err = -EEXIST;
+ ret = -EEXIST;
goto out;
}
@@ -1255,21 +1328,21 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
spin_unlock(src_ptl);
if (pte_none(orig_src_pte)) {
if (!(mode & UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES))
- err = -ENOENT;
+ ret = -ENOENT;
else /* nothing to do to move a hole */
- err = 0;
+ ret = PAGE_SIZE;
goto out;
}
/* If PTE changed after we locked the folio them start over */
if (src_folio && unlikely(!pte_same(src_folio_pte, orig_src_pte))) {
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
if (pte_present(orig_src_pte)) {
if (is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(orig_src_pte))) {
- err = move_zeropage_pte(mm, dst_vma, src_vma,
+ ret = move_zeropage_pte(mm, dst_vma, src_vma,
dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte,
dst_pmd, dst_pmdval, dst_ptl, src_ptl);
@@ -1292,14 +1365,14 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
spin_lock(src_ptl);
if (!pte_same(orig_src_pte, ptep_get(src_pte))) {
spin_unlock(src_ptl);
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
folio = vm_normal_folio(src_vma, src_addr, orig_src_pte);
if (!folio || !PageAnonExclusive(&folio->page)) {
spin_unlock(src_ptl);
- err = -EBUSY;
+ ret = -EBUSY;
goto out;
}
@@ -1313,7 +1386,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
*/
if (!locked && folio_test_large(folio)) {
spin_unlock(src_ptl);
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
@@ -1332,7 +1405,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
}
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_anon(src_folio))) {
- err = -EBUSY;
+ ret = -EBUSY;
goto out;
}
}
@@ -1343,8 +1416,8 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
pte_unmap(src_pte);
pte_unmap(dst_pte);
src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
- err = split_folio(src_folio);
- if (err)
+ ret = split_folio(src_folio);
+ if (ret)
goto out;
/* have to reacquire the folio after it got split */
folio_unlock(src_folio);
@@ -1362,7 +1435,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
src_anon_vma = folio_get_anon_vma(src_folio);
if (!src_anon_vma) {
/* page was unmapped from under us */
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
if (!anon_vma_trylock_write(src_anon_vma)) {
@@ -1375,10 +1448,11 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
}
}
- err = move_present_pte(mm, dst_vma, src_vma,
- dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
- orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte, dst_pmd,
- dst_pmdval, dst_ptl, src_ptl, src_folio);
+ ret = move_present_ptes(mm, dst_vma, src_vma,
+ dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
+ orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte, dst_pmd,
+ dst_pmdval, dst_ptl, src_ptl, &src_folio,
+ len, src_anon_vma);
} else {
struct folio *folio = NULL;
@@ -1389,20 +1463,20 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
pte_unmap(dst_pte);
src_pte = dst_pte = NULL;
migration_entry_wait(mm, src_pmd, src_addr);
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
} else
- err = -EFAULT;
+ ret = -EFAULT;
goto out;
}
if (!pte_swp_exclusive(orig_src_pte)) {
- err = -EBUSY;
+ ret = -EBUSY;
goto out;
}
si = get_swap_device(entry);
if (unlikely(!si)) {
- err = -EAGAIN;
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
/*
@@ -1422,7 +1496,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
swap_cache_index(entry));
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(folio)) {
if (folio_test_large(folio)) {
- err = -EBUSY;
+ ret = -EBUSY;
folio_put(folio);
goto out;
}
@@ -1439,7 +1513,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
goto retry;
}
}
- err = move_swap_pte(mm, dst_vma, dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
+ ret = move_swap_pte(mm, dst_vma, dst_addr, src_addr, dst_pte, src_pte,
orig_dst_pte, orig_src_pte, dst_pmd, dst_pmdval,
dst_ptl, src_ptl, src_folio, si, entry);
}
@@ -1461,7 +1535,7 @@ static int move_pages_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
if (si)
put_swap_device(si);
- return err;
+ return ret;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
@@ -1732,7 +1806,7 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
{
struct mm_struct *mm = ctx->mm;
struct vm_area_struct *src_vma, *dst_vma;
- unsigned long src_addr, dst_addr;
+ unsigned long src_addr, dst_addr, src_end;
pmd_t *src_pmd, *dst_pmd;
long err = -EINVAL;
ssize_t moved = 0;
@@ -1775,8 +1849,8 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
if (err)
goto out_unlock;
- for (src_addr = src_start, dst_addr = dst_start;
- src_addr < src_start + len;) {
+ for (src_addr = src_start, dst_addr = dst_start, src_end = src_start + len;
+ src_addr < src_end;) {
spinlock_t *ptl;
pmd_t dst_pmdval;
unsigned long step_size;
@@ -1844,6 +1918,8 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
dst_addr, src_addr);
step_size = HPAGE_PMD_SIZE;
} else {
+ long ret;
+
if (pmd_none(*src_pmd)) {
if (!(mode & UFFDIO_MOVE_MODE_ALLOW_SRC_HOLES)) {
err = -ENOENT;
@@ -1860,10 +1936,13 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
break;
}
- err = move_pages_pte(mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
- dst_vma, src_vma,
- dst_addr, src_addr, mode);
- step_size = PAGE_SIZE;
+ ret = move_pages_ptes(mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
+ dst_vma, src_vma, dst_addr,
+ src_addr, src_end - src_addr, mode);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ err = ret;
+ else
+ step_size = ret;
}
cond_resched();
base-commit: 3a4a0367c9f45b025ec57e1ba492512d5479d361
--
2.51.0.rc1.167.g924127e9c0-googOn Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:30 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
>
> MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
>
> Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
>
> With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> includes TLB-flush overhead.
>
> When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
> numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
> completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
>
> Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
> processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
> arm64 android device.
>
> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
> Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
[...]
> +static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
> + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> + struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> + unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
> + pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
> + pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> + spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> + struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
> + struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
> + unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
> + unsigned long src_end;
> +
> + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
> + len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> + src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> + } else
> + src_end = src_addr + len;
Nit:
Look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
.. code-block:: c
if (condition) {
do_this();
do_that();
} else {
otherwise();
}
By the way, what about the following for both cases? Would it impact
performance in the `PAGE_SIZE` cases?
len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
Thanks
Barry
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 9:44 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:30 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
> >
> > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> > ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
> >
> > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> > includes TLB-flush overhead.
> >
> > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
> > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
> > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
> >
> > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
> > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
> > arm64 android device.
> >
> > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
> > Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
>
> [...]
> > +static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > + struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > + unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
> > + pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
> > + pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> > + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> > + spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> > + struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
> > + struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
> > +{
> > + int err = 0;
> > + struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
> > + unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
> > + unsigned long src_end;
> > +
> > + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > + len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > + src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> > + } else
> > + src_end = src_addr + len;
>
> Nit:
>
> Look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
>
> This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
> statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
>
> .. code-block:: c
>
> if (condition) {
> do_this();
> do_that();
> } else {
> otherwise();
> }
>
> By the way, what about the following for both cases? Would it impact
> performance in the `PAGE_SIZE` cases?
>
> len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
By the way, do src and dst always have the same offset within a
single PMD? I don’t think so. If not, how can we verify that if
src’s PMD is not overflowing, dst is safe as well?
Have you only checked src? And for src, since you are already using
pmd_addr_end(), is src_end = src_addr + len fine? Why are you calling
pmd_addr_end twice after your first pmd_addr_end has already limited
the range?
Thanks
Barry
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 9:44 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:30 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
> > >
> > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
> > >
> > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> > > includes TLB-flush overhead.
> > >
> > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
> > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
> > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
> > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
> > > arm64 android device.
> > >
> > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
> > > Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
Thanks :-)
> >
> > [...]
> > > +static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > > + unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
> > > + pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
> > > + pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> > > + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> > > + spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> > > + struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
> > > + struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
> > > +{
> > > + int err = 0;
> > > + struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
> > > + unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
> > > + unsigned long src_end;
> > > +
> > > + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > + len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > > + src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> > > + } else
> > > + src_end = src_addr + len;
> >
> > Nit:
> >
> > Look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> >
> > This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
> > statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
> >
> > .. code-block:: c
> >
> > if (condition) {
> > do_this();
> > do_that();
> > } else {
> > otherwise();
> > }
Sorry for missing that. I can fix this in v6.
> >
> > By the way, what about the following for both cases? Would it impact
> > performance in the `PAGE_SIZE` cases?
I just wanted to avoid a bunch of instructions in two pmd_addr_end
invocations for the (len == PAGE_SIZE) case, which is not going to be
uncommon. But I guess overall, it is not big enough to matter so can
be removed.
> >
> > len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
>
> By the way, do src and dst always have the same offset within a
> single PMD? I don’t think so. If not, how can we verify that if
> src’s PMD is not overflowing, dst is safe as well?
>
> Have you only checked src? And for src, since you are already using
> pmd_addr_end(), is src_end = src_addr + len fine? Why are you calling
> pmd_addr_end twice after your first pmd_addr_end has already limited
> the range?
Effectively, we have to calculate min(len, extent in src pmd, extent
in dst pmd). That's the max that can be batched within a single
critical section of src_ptl and dst_ptl. The first pmd_addr_end() is
calculating min(len, extent of dst pmd). The second pmd_addr_end() is
calculating min(result of previous pmd_addr_end, extent of src pmd). I
don't think I'm missing any overflow check. But please correct me if
I'm mistaken.
>
> Thanks
> Barry
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 12:27 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 9:44 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:30 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> > > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> > > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
> > > >
> > > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> > > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> > > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> > > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
> > > >
> > > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> > > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> > > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> > > > includes TLB-flush overhead.
> > > >
> > > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
> > > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
> > > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
> > > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
> > > > arm64 android device.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
> > > > Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
> Thanks :-)
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > +static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > > > + struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > > > + unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
> > > > + pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
> > > > + pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> > > > + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> > > > + spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> > > > + struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
> > > > + struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int err = 0;
> > > > + struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
> > > > + unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
> > > > + unsigned long src_end;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > + len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > > > + src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> > > > + } else
> > > > + src_end = src_addr + len;
> > >
> > > Nit:
> > >
> > > Look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> > >
> > > This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
> > > statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
> > >
> > > .. code-block:: c
> > >
> > > if (condition) {
> > > do_this();
> > > do_that();
> > > } else {
> > > otherwise();
> > > }
> Sorry for missing that. I can fix this in v6.
> > >
> > > By the way, what about the following for both cases? Would it impact
> > > performance in the `PAGE_SIZE` cases?
>
> I just wanted to avoid a bunch of instructions in two pmd_addr_end
> invocations for the (len == PAGE_SIZE) case, which is not going to be
> uncommon. But I guess overall, it is not big enough to matter so can
> be removed.
Reducing the number of instructions doesn’t necessarily improve
performance—in fact, it can often have the opposite effect. It may lead
to increased branch mispredictions or make the code more memory-bound.
In this particular case, could branch misprediction be the real issue?
> > >
> > > len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > > src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> >
> > By the way, do src and dst always have the same offset within a
> > single PMD? I don’t think so. If not, how can we verify that if
> > src’s PMD is not overflowing, dst is safe as well?
> >
> > Have you only checked src? And for src, since you are already using
> > pmd_addr_end(), is src_end = src_addr + len fine? Why are you calling
> > pmd_addr_end twice after your first pmd_addr_end has already limited
> > the range?
>
> Effectively, we have to calculate min(len, extent in src pmd, extent
> in dst pmd). That's the max that can be batched within a single
> critical section of src_ptl and dst_ptl. The first pmd_addr_end() is
> calculating min(len, extent of dst pmd). The second pmd_addr_end() is
> calculating min(result of previous pmd_addr_end, extent of src pmd). I
> don't think I'm missing any overflow check. But please correct me if
> I'm mistaken.
You are right. I misunderstood your code yesterday.
Thanks
Barry
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 11:38 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 12:27 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 3:11 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 9:44 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:30 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required
> > > > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically
> > > > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC,
> > > > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total
> > > > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and
> > > > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio().
> > > > >
> > > > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over
> > > > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio().
> > > > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which
> > > > > includes TLB-flush overhead.
> > > > >
> > > > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above
> > > > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the
> > > > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins.
> > > > >
> > > > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system
> > > > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an
> > > > > arm64 android device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> > > > > Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>
> > > > > Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > > > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org>
> > Thanks :-)
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +static long move_present_ptes(struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > > > > + struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> > > > > + unsigned long dst_addr, unsigned long src_addr,
> > > > > + pte_t *dst_pte, pte_t *src_pte,
> > > > > + pte_t orig_dst_pte, pte_t orig_src_pte,
> > > > > + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> > > > > + spinlock_t *dst_ptl, spinlock_t *src_ptl,
> > > > > + struct folio **first_src_folio, unsigned long len,
> > > > > + struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int err = 0;
> > > > > + struct folio *src_folio = *first_src_folio;
> > > > > + unsigned long src_start = src_addr;
> > > > > + unsigned long src_end;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (len > PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > > + len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > > > > + src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> > > > > + } else
> > > > > + src_end = src_addr + len;
> > > >
> > > > Nit:
> > > >
> > > > Look at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> > > >
> > > > This does not apply if only one branch of a conditional statement is a single
> > > > statement; in the latter case use braces in both branches:
> > > >
> > > > .. code-block:: c
> > > >
> > > > if (condition) {
> > > > do_this();
> > > > do_that();
> > > > } else {
> > > > otherwise();
> > > > }
> > Sorry for missing that. I can fix this in v6.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, what about the following for both cases? Would it impact
> > > > performance in the `PAGE_SIZE` cases?
> >
> > I just wanted to avoid a bunch of instructions in two pmd_addr_end
> > invocations for the (len == PAGE_SIZE) case, which is not going to be
> > uncommon. But I guess overall, it is not big enough to matter so can
> > be removed.
>
> Reducing the number of instructions doesn’t necessarily improve
> performance—in fact, it can often have the opposite effect. It may lead
> to increased branch mispredictions or make the code more memory-bound.
> In this particular case, could branch misprediction be the real issue?
>
That's true. I didn't even consider branch misprediction. I will
upload v6 which removes the condition, thereby also fixing the nit.
> > > >
> > > > len = pmd_addr_end(dst_addr, dst_addr + len) - dst_addr;
> > > > src_end = pmd_addr_end(src_addr, src_addr + len);
> > >
> > > By the way, do src and dst always have the same offset within a
> > > single PMD? I don’t think so. If not, how can we verify that if
> > > src’s PMD is not overflowing, dst is safe as well?
> > >
> > > Have you only checked src? And for src, since you are already using
> > > pmd_addr_end(), is src_end = src_addr + len fine? Why are you calling
> > > pmd_addr_end twice after your first pmd_addr_end has already limited
> > > the range?
> >
> > Effectively, we have to calculate min(len, extent in src pmd, extent
> > in dst pmd). That's the max that can be batched within a single
> > critical section of src_ptl and dst_ptl. The first pmd_addr_end() is
> > calculating min(len, extent of dst pmd). The second pmd_addr_end() is
> > calculating min(result of previous pmd_addr_end, extent of src pmd). I
> > don't think I'm missing any overflow check. But please correct me if
> > I'm mistaken.
>
> You are right. I misunderstood your code yesterday.
>
> Thanks
> Barry
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:30:24 -0700 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing. > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC, > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and > ~20% in vm_normal_folio(). > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio(). > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which > includes TLB-flush overhead. > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an > arm64 android device. Were these inefficiencies a regression relative to an earlier kernel?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 2:47 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:30:24 -0700 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing. > > > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC, > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio(). > > > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio(). > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which > > includes TLB-flush overhead. > > > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. > > > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an > > arm64 android device. > > Were these inefficiencies a regression relative to an earlier kernel? No, these inefficiencies existed since MOVE ioctl came into existence. IOW, the patch is improving performance, rather than fixing a regression.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:02 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 2:47 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:30:24 -0700 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > > > > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required > > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically > > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing. > > > > > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC, > > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total > > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and > > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio(). > > > > > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over > > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio(). > > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which > > > includes TLB-flush overhead. > > > > > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above > > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the > > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. > > > > > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system > > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an > > > arm64 android device. > > > > Were these inefficiencies a regression relative to an earlier kernel? > No, these inefficiencies existed since MOVE ioctl came into existence. > IOW, the patch is improving performance, rather than fixing a > regression. It would be nice if Lokesh can backport it to older Android common kernel such as 6.6, 6.12 etc. Thanks Barry
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 3:22 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:02 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 2:47 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:30:24 -0700 Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required > > > > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically > > > > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing. > > > > > > > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC, > > > > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total > > > > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and > > > > ~20% in vm_normal_folio(). > > > > > > > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over > > > > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio(). > > > > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which > > > > includes TLB-flush overhead. > > > > > > > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above > > > > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the > > > > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. > > > > > > > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system > > > > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an > > > > arm64 android device. > > > > > > Were these inefficiencies a regression relative to an earlier kernel? > > No, these inefficiencies existed since MOVE ioctl came into existence. > > IOW, the patch is improving performance, rather than fixing a > > regression. > > It would be nice if Lokesh can backport it to older Android common kernel such > as 6.6, 6.12 etc. I plan to do that after a couple of weeks of soak time :-) > > Thanks > Barry
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 12:30:24PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote: > MOVE ioctl's runtime is dominated by TLB-flush cost, which is required > for moving present pages. Mitigate this cost by opportunistically > batching present contiguous pages for TLB flushing. > > Without batching, in our testing on an arm64 Android device with UFFD GC, > which uses MOVE ioctl for compaction, we observed that out of the total > time spent in move_pages_pte(), over 40% is in ptep_clear_flush(), and > ~20% in vm_normal_folio(). > > With batching, the proportion of vm_normal_folio() increases to over > 70% of move_pages_pte() without any changes to vm_normal_folio(). > Furthermore, time spent within move_pages_pte() is only ~20%, which > includes TLB-flush overhead. > > When the GC intensive benchmark, which was used to gather the above > numbers, is run on cuttlefish (qemu android instance on x86_64), the > completion time of the benchmark went down from ~45mins to ~20mins. > > Furthermore, system_server, one of the most performance critical system > processes on android, saw over 50% reduction in GC compaction time on an > arm64 android device. > > Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> > Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com> > Cc: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com> > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> > Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> Acked-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> -- Peter Xu
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.