From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"minchan.kim@gmail.com" <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
cl@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asynchronous page fault.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:36:06 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091228093606.9f2e666c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1261915391.15854.31.camel@laptop>
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:03:11 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-25 at 10:51 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > /*
> > + * Returns vma which contains given address. This scans rb-tree in speculative
> > + * way and increment a reference count if found. Even if vma exists in rb-tree,
> > + * this function may return NULL in racy case. So, this function cannot be used
> > + * for checking whether given address is valid or not.
> > + */
> > +struct vm_area_struct *
> > +find_vma_speculative(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma = NULL;
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma_tmp;
> > + struct rb_node *rb_node;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!mm))
> > + return NULL;;
> > +
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + rb_node = rcu_dereference(mm->mm_rb.rb_node);
> > + vma = NULL;
> > + while (rb_node) {
> > + vma_tmp = rb_entry(rb_node, struct vm_area_struct, vm_rb);
> > +
> > + if (vma_tmp->vm_end > addr) {
> > + vma = vma_tmp;
> > + if (vma_tmp->vm_start <= addr)
> > + break;
> > + rb_node = rcu_dereference(rb_node->rb_left);
> > + } else
> > + rb_node = rcu_dereference(rb_node->rb_right);
> > + }
> > + if (vma) {
> > + if ((vma->vm_start <= addr) && (addr < vma->vm_end)) {
> > + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&vma->refcnt))
>
> And here you destroy pretty much all advantage of having done the
> lockless lookup ;-)
>
Hmm ? for single-thread apps ? This patch's purpose is not for lockless
lookup, it's just a part of work. My purpose is avoiding false-sharing.
2.6.33-rc2's score of the same test program is here.
75.42% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsav
|
--- _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
|
|--49.13%-- __down_read_trylock
| down_read_trylock
| do_page_fault
| page_fault
| 0x400950
| |
| --100.00%-- (nil)
|
|--46.92%-- __up_read
| up_read
| |
| |--99.99%-- do_page_fault
| | page_fault
| | 0x400950
| | (nil)
| --0.01%-- [...]
Most of time is used for up/down read.
Here is a comparison between
- page fault by 8 threads on one vma
- page fault by 8 threads on 8 vma on x86-64.
== one vma ==
# Samples: 1338964273489
#
# Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ............... ........................ ......
#
26.90% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] clear_page_c
|
--- clear_page_c
__alloc_pages_nodemask
handle_mm_fault
do_page_fault
page_fault
0x400940
|
--100.00%-- (nil)
20.65% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
|
--- _raw_spin_lock
|
|--85.07%-- free_pcppages_bulk
| free_hot_cold_page
....<snip>
3.94% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] find_vma_speculative
|
--- find_vma_speculative
|
|--99.40%-- do_page_fault
| page_fault
| 0x400940
| |
| --100.00%-- (nil)
|
--0.60%-- page_fault
0x400940
|
--100.00%-- (nil)
==
== 8 vma ==
27.98% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] clear_page_c
|
--- clear_page_c
__alloc_pages_nodemask
handle_mm_fault
do_page_fault
page_fault
0x400950
|
--100.00%-- (nil)
21.91% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
|
--- _raw_spin_lock
|
|--77.01%-- free_pcppages_bulk
| free_hot_cold_page
| __pagevec_free
| release_pages
...<snip>
0.21% multi-fault-all [kernel] [k] find_vma_speculative
|
--- find_vma_speculative
|
|--87.50%-- do_page_fault
| page_fault
| 0x400950
| |
| --100.00%-- (nil)
|
--12.50%-- page_fault
0x400950
|
--100.00%-- (nil)
==
Yes, this atomic_inc_unless adds some overhead. But this isn't as bad as
false sharing in mmap_sem. Anyway, as Minchan pointed out, this code contains
bug. I consider this part again.
> The idea is to let the RCU lock span whatever length you need the vma
> for, the easy way is to simply use PREEMPT_RCU=y for now,
I tried to remove his kind of reference count trick but I can't do that
without synchronize_rcu() somewhere in unmap code. I don't like that and
use this refcnt.
> the hard way
> is to also incorporate the drop-mmap_sem on blocking patches from a
> while ago.
>
"drop-mmap_sem if block" is no help for this false-sharing problem.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-28 0:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-25 1:51 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-27 9:47 ` Minchan Kim
2009-12-27 23:59 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-27 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 0:00 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 0:57 ` Balbir Singh
2009-12-28 1:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 2:58 ` Balbir Singh
2009-12-28 3:13 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 8:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 8:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-29 9:54 ` Balbir Singh
2009-12-27 12:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 0:36 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [this message]
2009-12-28 1:19 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 9:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 10:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-02 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-04 3:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-04 7:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-04 15:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-04 16:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-04 16:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-01-04 13:48 ` [RFC PATCH -v2] speculative " Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 10:57 ` [RFC PATCH] asynchronous " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 11:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-28 10:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2009-12-28 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-01-02 21:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091228093606.9f2e666c.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox