Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | Date | Wed, 1 Apr 2026 17:09:31 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/mprotect: special-case small folios when applying write permissions |
| |
On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 17:16:51 +0200 "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org> wrote:
> > That could also work, but then set_write_prot_commit_flush_ptes (holy cow > > what a long name) would definitely need inlining. And might be a little uglier > > overall. > > Right. The idea is that you __always__inline any code that has PTE > loops, such that all loops for nr_pages == 1 gets optimized out. > > We do that for zap and fork logic. > > > > > This is the part where having data points other than my giga-fast-giga-powerful > > zen5 could prove handy :/ > I just recently lost access to my reliably, well tunes, system ... > > Is it just the following benchmark? > > https://gist.github.com/heatd/1450d273005aba91fa5744f44dfcd933 > > ? > > > I can easily extending > > https://gitlab.com/davidhildenbrand/scratchspace/-/blob/main/pte-mapped-folio-benchmarks.c > > to have an "mprotect" mode. I had that in the past bit discarded it. > > Then, we can easily measure the effect on various folio sizes when > mprotect'ing a larger memory area. > > With order-0 we can then benchmark small folios exclusively.
It sounds like this is all possible future work?
We have Lorenzo's R-b on this [2/2]. I'm reading this discussion as "upstream both"?
--- a/mm/mprotect.c~mm-mprotect-special-case-small-folios-when-applying-write-permissions +++ a/mm/mprotect.c @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_a return can_change_shared_pte_writable(vma, pte); } -static int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep, +static __always_inline int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr_ptes, fpb_t flags) { /* No underlying folio, so cannot batch */ @@ -117,9 +117,9 @@ static int mprotect_folio_pte_batch(stru } /* Set nr_ptes number of ptes, starting from idx */ -static void prot_commit_flush_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, - pte_t *ptep, pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent, int nr_ptes, - int idx, bool set_write, struct mmu_gather *tlb) +static __always_inline void prot_commit_flush_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, + unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent, + int nr_ptes, int idx, bool set_write, struct mmu_gather *tlb) { /* * Advance the position in the batch by idx; note that if idx > 0, @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int page_anon_exclusive_sub_batch * pte of the batch. Therefore, we must individually check all pages and * retrieve sub-batches. */ -static void commit_anon_folio_batch(struct vm_area_struct *vma, +static __always_inline void commit_anon_folio_batch(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct folio *folio, struct page *first_page, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t oldpte, pte_t ptent, int nr_ptes, struct mmu_gather *tlb) { @@ -177,6 +177,13 @@ static void commit_anon_folio_batch(stru int sub_batch_idx = 0; int len; + /* Optimize for the common order-0 case. */ + if (likely(nr_ptes == 1)) { + prot_commit_flush_ptes(vma, addr, ptep, oldpte, ptent, 1, + 0, PageAnonExclusive(first_page), tlb); + return; + } + while (nr_ptes) { expected_anon_exclusive = PageAnonExclusive(first_page + sub_batch_idx); len = page_anon_exclusive_sub_batch(sub_batch_idx, nr_ptes, _
|  |