Re: [PATCH v2] mempolicy: Optimize queue_folios_pte_range by PTE batching

From: David Hildenbrand
Date: Tue Apr 15 2025 - 13:19:58 EST


On 15.04.25 16:57, Dev Jain wrote:
After the check for queue_folio_required(), the code only cares about the
folio in the for loop, i.e the PTEs are redundant. Therefore, optimize
this loop by skipping over a PTE batch mapping the same folio.

With a test program migrating pages of the calling process, which includes
a mapped VMA of size 4GB with pte-mapped large folios of order-9, and
migrating once back and forth node-0 and node-1, the average execution
time reduces from 7.5 to 4 seconds, giving an approx 47% speedup.

v1->v2:
- Follow reverse xmas tree declarations
- Don't initialize nr
- Move folio_pte_batch() immediately after retrieving a normal folio
- increment nr_failed in one shot

Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@xxxxxxx>
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 12 ++++++++++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index b28a1e6ae096..ca90cdcd3207 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -566,6 +566,7 @@ static void queue_folios_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, struct mm_walk *walk)
static int queue_folios_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
{
+ const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
struct vm_area_struct *vma = walk->vma;
struct folio *folio;
struct queue_pages *qp = walk->private;
@@ -573,6 +574,7 @@ static int queue_folios_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
pte_t *pte, *mapped_pte;
pte_t ptent;
spinlock_t *ptl;
+ int max_nr, nr;
ptl = pmd_trans_huge_lock(pmd, vma);
if (ptl) {
@@ -586,7 +588,8 @@ static int queue_folios_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
walk->action = ACTION_AGAIN;
return 0;
}
- for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
+ for (; addr != end; pte += nr, addr += nr * PAGE_SIZE) {
+ nr = 1;
ptent = ptep_get(pte);
if (pte_none(ptent))
continue;
@@ -598,6 +601,11 @@ static int queue_folios_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
folio = vm_normal_folio(vma, addr, ptent);
if (!folio || folio_is_zone_device(folio))
continue;
+ if (folio_test_large(folio) &&
+ (max_nr = ((end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT)) != 1)

That's real nasty :)

Let's simply do at the beginning of the loop:

max_nr = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
nr = 1;

Then here

if (folio_test_large(folio) && max_nr != 1)
nr = ...

The compiler is smart enough to optimize the computation of values where really required.

With that

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb