[RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mincore: Use can_pte_batch_count() in mincore_pte_range() for pte batch mincore_pte_range()

Zhang Qilong posted 3 patches 3 months, 2 weeks ago
[RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mincore: Use can_pte_batch_count() in mincore_pte_range() for pte batch mincore_pte_range()
Posted by Zhang Qilong 3 months, 2 weeks ago
In current mincore_pte_range(), if pte_batch_hint() return one
pte, it's not efficient, just call new added can_pte_batch_count().

In ARM64 qemu, with 8 CPUs, 32G memory, a simple test demo like:
1. mmap 1G anon memory
2. write 1G data by 4k step
3. mincore the mmaped 1G memory
4. get the time consumed by mincore

Tested the following cases:
 - 4k, disabled all hugepage setting.
 - 64k mTHP, only enable 64k hugepage setting.

Before

Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
----------------------------------|
4k          | 7356                |
64k mTHP    | 3670                |

Pathed:

Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
----------------------------------|
4k          | 4419                |
64k mTHP    | 3061                |

The result is evident and demonstrate a significant improvement in
the pte batch. While verification within a single environment may
have inherent randomness. there is a high probability of achieving
positive effects.

Signed-off-by: Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@huawei.com>
---
 mm/mincore.c | 10 +++-------
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mincore.c b/mm/mincore.c
index 8ec4719370e1..2cc5d276d1cd 100644
--- a/mm/mincore.c
+++ b/mm/mincore.c
@@ -178,18 +178,14 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
 		/* We need to do cache lookup too for pte markers */
 		if (pte_none_mostly(pte))
 			__mincore_unmapped_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE,
 						 vma, vec);
 		else if (pte_present(pte)) {
-			unsigned int batch = pte_batch_hint(ptep, pte);
-
-			if (batch > 1) {
-				unsigned int max_nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
-
-				step = min_t(unsigned int, batch, max_nr);
-			}
+			unsigned int max_nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
 
+			step = can_pte_batch_count(vma, ptep, &pte,
+						   max_nr, 0);
 			for (i = 0; i < step; i++)
 				vec[i] = 1;
 		} else { /* pte is a swap entry */
 			*vec = mincore_swap(pte_to_swp_entry(pte), false);
 		}
-- 
2.43.0
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mincore: Use can_pte_batch_count() in mincore_pte_range() for pte batch mincore_pte_range()
Posted by Lorenzo Stoakes 3 months, 2 weeks ago
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 10:03:14PM +0800, Zhang Qilong wrote:
> In current mincore_pte_range(), if pte_batch_hint() return one
> pte, it's not efficient, just call new added can_pte_batch_count().
>
> In ARM64 qemu, with 8 CPUs, 32G memory, a simple test demo like:
> 1. mmap 1G anon memory
> 2. write 1G data by 4k step
> 3. mincore the mmaped 1G memory
> 4. get the time consumed by mincore
>
> Tested the following cases:
>  - 4k, disabled all hugepage setting.
>  - 64k mTHP, only enable 64k hugepage setting.
>
> Before
>
> Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
> ----------------------------------|
> 4k          | 7356                |
> 64k mTHP    | 3670                |
>
> Pathed:
>
> Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
> ----------------------------------|
> 4k          | 4419                |
> 64k mTHP    | 3061                |
>
> The result is evident and demonstrate a significant improvement in
> the pte batch. While verification within a single environment may
> have inherent randomness. there is a high probability of achieving
> positive effects.

Recent batch PTE series seriously regressed non-arm, so I'm afraid we can't
accept any series that doesn't show statistics for _other platforms_.

Please make sure you at least test x86-64.

This code is very sensitive and we're not going to accept a patch like this
without _being sure_ it's ok.

>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Qilong <zhangqilong3@huawei.com>
> ---
>  mm/mincore.c | 10 +++-------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mincore.c b/mm/mincore.c
> index 8ec4719370e1..2cc5d276d1cd 100644
> --- a/mm/mincore.c
> +++ b/mm/mincore.c
> @@ -178,18 +178,14 @@ static int mincore_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>  		/* We need to do cache lookup too for pte markers */
>  		if (pte_none_mostly(pte))
>  			__mincore_unmapped_range(addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE,
>  						 vma, vec);
>  		else if (pte_present(pte)) {
> -			unsigned int batch = pte_batch_hint(ptep, pte);
> -
> -			if (batch > 1) {
> -				unsigned int max_nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> -
> -				step = min_t(unsigned int, batch, max_nr);
> -			}
> +			unsigned int max_nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> +			step = can_pte_batch_count(vma, ptep, &pte,
> +						   max_nr, 0);
>  			for (i = 0; i < step; i++)
>  				vec[i] = 1;
>  		} else { /* pte is a swap entry */
>  			*vec = mincore_swap(pte_to_swp_entry(pte), false);
>  		}
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] mm/mincore: Use can_pte_batch_count() in mincore_pte_range() for pte batch mincore_pte_range()
Posted by David Hildenbrand 3 months, 2 weeks ago
On 27.10.25 15:03, Zhang Qilong wrote:
> In current mincore_pte_range(), if pte_batch_hint() return one
> pte, it's not efficient, just call new added can_pte_batch_count().
> 
> In ARM64 qemu, with 8 CPUs, 32G memory, a simple test demo like:
> 1. mmap 1G anon memory
> 2. write 1G data by 4k step
> 3. mincore the mmaped 1G memory
> 4. get the time consumed by mincore
> 
> Tested the following cases:
>   - 4k, disabled all hugepage setting.
>   - 64k mTHP, only enable 64k hugepage setting.
> 
> Before
> 
> Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
> ----------------------------------|
> 4k          | 7356                |
> 64k mTHP    | 3670                |
> 
> Pathed:
> 
> Case status | Consumed time (us)  |
> ----------------------------------|
> 4k          | 4419                |
> 64k mTHP    | 3061                |
> 

I assume you're only lucky in that benchmark because you got consecutive 
4k pages / 64k mTHP from the buddy, right?

So I suspect that this will mostly just make a micro benchmark happy, 
because the reality where we allocate randomly over time, for the PCP, 
etc will look quite different.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb