mm/mremap: optimize the start addresses in move_page_tables()
Patch series "Optimize mremap during mutual alignment within PMD", v6. This patchset optimizes the start addresses in move_page_tables() and tests the changes. It addresses a warning [1] that occurs due to a downward, overlapping move on a mutually-aligned offset within a PMD during exec. By initiating the copy process at the PMD level when such alignment is present, we can prevent this warning and speed up the copying process at the same time. Linus Torvalds suggested this idea. Check the individual patches for more details. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZB2GTBD%2FLWTrkOiO@dhcp22.suse.cz/ This patch (of 7): Recently, we see reports [1] of a warning that triggers due to move_page_tables() doing a downward and overlapping move on a mutually-aligned offset within a PMD. By mutual alignment, I mean the source and destination addresses of the mremap are at the same offset within a PMD. This mutual alignment along with the fact that the move is downward is sufficient to cause a warning related to having an allocated PMD that does not have PTEs in it. This warning will only trigger when there is mutual alignment in the move operation. A solution, as suggested by Linus Torvalds [2], is to initiate the copy process at the PMD level whenever such alignment is present. Implementing this approach will not only prevent the warning from being triggered, but it will also optimize the operation as this method should enhance the speed of the copy process whenever there's a possibility to start copying at the PMD level. Some more points: a. The optimization can be done only when both the source and destination of the mremap do not have anything mapped below it up to a PMD boundary. I add support to detect that. b. #1 is not a problem for the call to move_page_tables() from exec.c as nothing is expected to be mapped below the source. However, for non-overlapping mutually aligned moves as triggered by mremap(2), I added support for checking such cases. c. I currently only optimize for PMD moves, in the future I/we can build on this work and do PUD moves as well if there is a need for this. But I want to take it one step at a time. d. We need to be careful about mremap of ranges within the VMA itself. For this purpose, I added checks to determine if the address after alignment falls within its VMA itself. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZB2GTBD%2FLWTrkOiO@dhcp22.suse.cz/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whd7msp8reJPfeGNyt0LiySMT0egExx3TVZSX3Ok6X=9g@mail.gmail.com/ Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230903151328.2981432-1-joel@joelfernandes.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230903151328.2981432-2-joel@joelfernandes.orgSigned-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name> Cc: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com> Cc: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org> Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment