Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] mm/vmalloc: map contiguous pages in batches for vmap() if possible

[Dev Jain]

[------]

>> +
>> +	nr_contig = num_pages_contiguous(&pages[idx], max_steps);
>> +	if (nr_contig < 2)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	order = ilog2(nr_contig);
>> +	pfn = page_to_pfn(pages[idx]);
>> +
>> +	/* Limit order by pfn alignment */
>> +	if (pfn > 0)
>> +		order = min_t(int, order, __ffs(pfn));
> 
> Wouldn't it make sense to determine that before you call num_pages_contiguous?
> Because then, you can just scan to that maximum instead of the given nr_pages.

Right!


> 
>> +
>> +	if (vm_shift(prot, PAGE_SIZE << order) == PAGE_SHIFT)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	return order;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vmap_pages_range_batched(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>> +		pgprot_t prot, struct page **pages)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> 
> "nr_pages" ? Also, can be const.
> 
>> +	unsigned int prev_shift = 0, idx = 0;
>> +	unsigned long map_addr = addr, batch_end = addr;
>> +	int err;
>> +
>> +	err = kmsan_vmap_pages_range_noflush(addr, end, prot, pages,
>> +					     PAGE_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Is the indentation on the second parameter line off?
> 
>> +	if (err)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	for (unsigned int i = 0; i < count; ) {
>> +		unsigned int shift = PAGE_SHIFT +
>> +			get_vmap_batch_order(pages, prot, count - i, i);
> 
> Having two indices, i and idx, is just confusing.
> 
> The whole function is a bit overly complicated. Does it really buy us much to
> batch over vmap_pages_range_noflush_walk() calling with the same shift?

It will buy us more in the sense that, vmap() speed is sensitive to the number
of pagetable walks. I think that is reflected by the ioremap(1MB) 1.35x speedup
mentioned in the cover letter.

In terms of callers, not sure. I would expect a caller to get the highest
power of 2 from the total needed nr_pages, then get the next highest power
of 2 from the remaining, and so on.

For the arm64 TRBE usecase, the relevant code is the rb_alloc_aux_page() caller in
kernel/events/ring_buffer.c. We may get multiple same order requests if can't
get the first requested higher order.

Since on the cover letter I see Wen and team have tested on boards, I lean
towards saying it is reasonable to assume a usecase where such order
fallback can happen.

But yeah the code for this currently is not so nice I agree.

> 
>> +
>> +		if (!i)
>> +			prev_shift = shift;
>> +
>> +		if (shift != prev_shift) {
>> +			err = vmap_pages_range_noflush_walk(map_addr, batch_end,
>> +					prot, pages + idx, prev_shift);
>> +			if (err)
>> +				goto out;
>> +			prev_shift = shift;
>> +			map_addr = batch_end;
>> +			idx = i;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Once small pages are encountered, the remaining pages
>> +		 * are likely small as well.
> 
> "small pages" is odd. Maybe
> 
> "Once we fail to batch pages, we expect to fail batching for all remaining
> pages, so just give up."
> 
>> +		 */
>> +		if (shift == PAGE_SHIFT)
>> +			break;
>> +
>> +		batch_end += 1UL << shift;
>> +		i += 1U << (shift - PAGE_SHIFT);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* Remaining */
>> +	if (map_addr < end)
>> +		err = vmap_pages_range_noflush_walk(map_addr, end,
>> +				prot, pages + idx, prev_shift);
>> +
>> +out:
>> +	flush_cache_vmap(addr, end);
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /**
>>   * vmap - map an array of pages into virtually contiguous space
>>   * @pages: array of page pointers
>> @@ -3600,8 +3678,8 @@ void *vmap(struct page **pages, unsigned int count,
>>  		return NULL;
>>
>>  	addr = (unsigned long)area->addr;
>> -	if (vmap_pages_range(addr, addr + size, pgprot_nx(prot),
>> -				pages, PAGE_SHIFT) < 0) {
>> +	if (vmap_pages_range_batched(addr, addr + size, pgprot_nx(prot),
>> +				pages) < 0) {
> 
> Nit: single line would make that nicer to read.
>