[PATCH 2/4] mm: speed up mremap by 500x on large regions (v2)

[Joel Fernandes]

Hi Balbir,

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:21:02PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 07:13:50PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:57:33PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > +		pmd_t pmd;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +		new_ptl = pmd_lockptr(mm, new_pmd);
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Looks like this is largely inspired by move_huge_pmd(), I guess a lot of
> > > the code applies, why not just reuse as much as possible? The same comments
> > > w.r.t mmap_sem helping protect against lock order issues applies as well.
> > 
> > I thought about this and when I looked into it, it seemed there are subtle
> > differences that make such sharing not worth it (or not possible).
> >
> 
> Could you elaborate on them?

The move_huge_page function is defined only for CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
so we cannot reuse it to begin with, since we have it disabled on our
systems. I am not sure if it is a good idea to split that out and refactor it
for reuse especially since our case is quite simple compared to huge pages.

There are also a couple of subtle differences between the move_normal_pmd and
the move_huge_pmd. Atleast 2 of them are:

1. We don't concern ourself with the PMD dirty bit, since the pages being
moved are normal pages and at the soft-dirty bit accounting is at the PTE
level, since we are not moving PTEs, we don't need to do that.

2. The locking is simpler as Kirill pointed, pmd_lock cannot fail however
__pmd_trans_huge_lock can.

I feel it is not super useful to refactor move_huge_pmd to support our case
especially since move_normal_pmd is quite small, so IMHO the benefit of code
reuse isn't there very much.

Do let me know your thoughts and thanks for your interest in this.

thanks,

 - Joel