Re: [PATCH 2/2] ksm: Optimize rmap_walk_ksm by passing a suitable address range
From: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2026 - 14:26:00 EST
On 1/12/26 15:01, xu.xin16@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: xu xin <xu.xin16@xxxxxxxxxx>
Problem
=======
When available memory is extremely tight, causing KSM pages to be swapped
out, or when there is significant memory fragmentation and THP triggers
memory compaction, the system will invoke the rmap_walk_ksm function to
perform reverse mapping. However, we observed that this function becomes
particularly time-consuming when a large number of VMAs (e.g., 20,000)
share the same anon_vma. Through debug trace analysis, we found that most
of the latency occurs within anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach, leading to an
excessively long hold time on the anon_vma lock (even reaching 500ms or
more), which in turn causes upper-layer applications (waiting for the
anon_vma lock) to be blocked for extended periods.
Root Reaon
==========
Further investigation revealed that 99.9% of iterations inside the
anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach loop are skipped due to the first check
"if (addr < vma->vm_start || addr >= vma->vm_end)), indicating that a large
number of loop iterations are ineffective. This inefficiency arises because
the pgoff_start and pgoff_end parameters passed to
anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach span the entire address space from 0 to
ULONG_MAX, resulting in very poor loop efficiency.
Solution
========
In fact, we can significantly improve performance by passing a more precise
range based on the given addr. Since the original pages merged by KSM
correspond to anonymous VMAs, the page offset can be calculated as
pgoff = address >> PAGE_SHIFT. Therefore, we can optimize the call by
defining:
pgoff_start = rmap_item->address >> PAGE_SHIFT;
pgoff_end = pgoff_start + folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1;
Performance
===========
In our real embedded Linux environment, the measured metrcis were as follows:
1) Time_ms: Max time for holding anon_vma lock in a single rmap_walk_ksm.
2) Nr_iteration_total: The max times of iterations in a loop of anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach
3) Skip_addr_out_of_range: The max times of skipping due to the first check (vma->vm_start
and vma->vm_end) in a loop of anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach.
4) Skip_mm_mismatch: The max times of skipping due to the second check (rmap_item->mm == vma->vm_mm)
in a loop of anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach.
The result is as follows:
Time_ms Nr_iteration_total Skip_addr_out_of_range Skip_mm_mismatch
Before patched: 228.65 22169 22168 0
After pacthed: 0.396 3 0 2
Nice improvement.
Can you make your reproducer available?
Co-developed-by: Wang Yaxin <wang.yaxin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: xu xin <xu.xin16@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/ksm.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/ksm.c b/mm/ksm.c
index 335e7151e4a1..0a074ad8e867 100644
--- a/mm/ksm.c
+++ b/mm/ksm.c
@@ -3172,6 +3172,7 @@ void rmap_walk_ksm(struct folio *folio, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc)
struct anon_vma_chain *vmac;
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
unsigned long addr;
+ pgoff_t pgoff_start, pgoff_end;
cond_resched();
if (!anon_vma_trylock_read(anon_vma)) {
@@ -3185,8 +3186,11 @@ void rmap_walk_ksm(struct folio *folio, struct rmap_walk_control *rwc)
/* Ignore the stable/unstable/sqnr flags */
addr = rmap_item->address & PAGE_MASK;
+ pgoff_start = rmap_item->address >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ pgoff_end = pgoff_start + folio_nr_pages(folio) - 1;
KSM folios are always order-0, so you can keep it simple and hard-code PAGE_SIZE here.
You can also initialize both values directly and make them const.
+
anon_vma_interval_tree_foreach(vmac, &anon_vma->rb_root,
- 0, ULONG_MAX) {
+ pgoff_start, pgoff_end) {
This is interesting. When we fork() with KSM pages we don't duplicate the rmap items. So we rely on this handling here to find all KSM pages even in child processes without distinct rmap items.
The important thing is that, whenever we mremap(), we break COW to unshare all KSM pages (see prep_move_vma).
So, indeed, I would expect that we only ever have to search at rmap->address even in child processes. So makes sense to me.
--
Cheers
David