Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] mm/gup: fix omission of check on FOLL_LONGTERM in get_user_pages_fast()

[Pingfan Liu]

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 5:17 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 6/5/19 7:19 PM, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:49 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> >>> --- a/mm/gup.c
> >>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> >>> @@ -2196,6 +2196,26 @@ static int __gup_longterm_unlocked(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> >>>       return ret;
> >>>  }
> >>>
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CMA
> >>> +static inline int reject_cma_pages(int nr_pinned, struct page **pages)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     int i;
> >>> +
> >>> +     for (i = 0; i < nr_pinned; i++)
> >>> +             if (is_migrate_cma_page(pages[i])) {
> >>> +                     put_user_pages(pages + i, nr_pinned - i);
> >>> +                     return i;
> >>> +             }
> >>> +
> >>> +     return nr_pinned;
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> There's no point in inlining this.
> > OK, will drop it in V4.
> >
> >>
> >> The code seems inefficient.  If it encounters a single CMA page it can
> >> end up discarding a possibly significant number of non-CMA pages.  I
> > The trick is the page is not be discarded, in fact, they are still be
> > referrenced by pte. We just leave the slow path to pick up the non-CMA
> > pages again.
> >
> >> guess that doesn't matter much, as get_user_pages(FOLL_LONGTERM) is
> >> rare.  But could we avoid this (and the second pass across pages[]) by
> >> checking for a CMA page within gup_pte_range()?
> > It will spread the same logic to hugetlb pte and normal pte. And no
> > improvement in performance due to slow path. So I think maybe it is
> > not worth.
> >
> >>
>
> I think the concern is: for the successful gup_fast case with no CMA
> pages, this patch is adding another complete loop through all the
> pages. In the fast case.
>
> If the check were instead done as part of the gup_pte_range(), then
> it would be a little more efficient for that case.
>
> As for whether it's worth it, *probably* this is too small an effect to measure.
> But in order to attempt a measurement: running fio (https://github.com/axboe/fio)
> with O_DIRECT on an NVMe drive, might shed some light. Here's an fio.conf file
> that Jan Kara and Tom Talpey helped me come up with, for related testing:
>
> [reader]
> direct=1
> ioengine=libaio
> blocksize=4096
> size=1g
> numjobs=1
> rw=read
> iodepth=64
>
Yeah, agreed. Data is more persuasive. Thanks for your suggestion. I
will try to bring out the result.

Thanks,
  Pingfan