Re: [REGRESSION] mm/mprotect: shared dirty PTE toggle takes ~1.6x longer on v6.19 than v6.12

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 05:03:44PM +0800, Chengfeng Lin wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I tested the current akpm/mm mm-unstable branch at
> 444fc9435e57, which contains Pedro's v3 two-patch mprotect series: the
> softleaf refactor and the relevant small-folio / nr_ptes == 1 changes.
> 
> I first ran a local sanity check, and then reran the same shared-dirty
> full-range toggle workload on the lab machine:
> 
>   kernels: v6.12.77, v6.19.9, akpm/mm mm-unstable 444fc9435e57
>   QEMU: direct boot
>   lab guest CPUs: QEMU_SMP=1/2/4/8/16
>   lab guest memory: 14336 MiB for 1/2/4 CPU, 16384 MiB for 8 CPU,
>                     32768 MiB for 16 CPU
>   repetitions: 9
>   order: interleaved
>   coverage: disabled
> 
> The primary metric is cycle_ns_per_page, lower is better. Here "cycle" means
> one workload iteration, not CPU cycles:
> 
>   CPU   v6.12.77   v6.19.9   mm-unstable   mm-unstable vs v6.19   gap closed
>     1      336.1     532.0       497.0          6.6% faster          17.9%
>     2      369.2     581.9       503.3         13.5% faster          36.9%
>     4      355.7     587.2       524.2         10.7% faster          27.2%
>     8      369.7     583.6       534.2          8.5% faster          23.1%
>    16      374.8     607.1       547.8          9.8% faster          25.5%
> 
> The 1/2/4/8 CPU rows completed 9/9 runs for all three kernels. In the
> 16 CPU row, v6.12.77 had one QEMU failure, so I would treat that row only
> as a supporting trend.
> 
> So yes, Pedro's small-folio work does reduce this synthetic shared-dirty
> signal in my setup. It does not seem to remove most of the gap to v6.12.77:
> looking at cycle_ns_per_page, it closes roughly 18-37% of the v6.12 ->
> v6.19 gap in the clean 1/2/4/8 CPU lab rows.
> 
> I also ran a separate state-shape audit, because the MADV_PAGEOUT follow-up
> showed that a timing delta can be misleading if the compared kernels are not
> actually operating on the same page state. For this mprotect workload, the
> successful runs across v6.12.77, v6.19.9, and mm-unstable all used the same
> 4 KiB shared-dirty PTE mapping shape:
> 
>   expected_match_ratio = 100
>   unexpected_results = 0
>   final_vmas_avg = 1
>   present pages before/after protect = 16384 / 16384
>   AnonHugePages = 0
>   KernelPageSize/MMUPageSize = 4 KiB / 4 KiB
>   THPeligible = 0
> 
> The state audit used the same 1/2/4/8/16 CPU and memory matrix, with 5 runs
> per kernel. The 1/2/4/8 CPU rows completed 5/5 for all three kernels; the
> 16 CPU row had one v6.19.9 QEMU failure, but the successful v6.19.9 runs had
> the same state-shape values.
> 
> I put the follow-up summaries here:
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence-2026-05/tree/0c0e2d9/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/mm-unstable-lab-sanity
> 
>   https://github.com/lcf0399/linux-mm-regression-evidence-2026-05/tree/0c0e2d9/mprotect-shared-dirty-toggle/state-audit-lab
> 
> Given Lorenzo's question and the synthetic nature of this workload, I will
> avoid treating this as a strong regression claim unless I can provide a
> standalone reproducer and/or a narrower bisect. If this remaining signal is
> still useful to characterize, I can prepare a smaller standalone reproducer
> or try to bisect the remaining gap.

Yes, if you could give me more pointers (and a simpler repro) I would be happy
to take a quick look. Otherwise there's not much I can do here :)

-- 
Pedro