Re: [PATCH 6/6] mm/slab: allocation fastpath without disabling irq

[Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:34:39AM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:31:22AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:21:39PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > > +	ac->tid = next_tid(ac->tid);
> > > (and all others)
> > > 
> > > object oriented:
> > > array_cache_next_tid(ac);
> > > (or perhaps rather: array_cache_start_transaction(ac);?).
> > 
> > Okay. Christoph request common transaction id management code. If
> > above object oriented design fit that, I will do it.
> 
> Yeah, that may easily have been the same thing.
> This function would then obviously and simply do a
>     ac->tid = next_tid(ac->tid);
> dance internally
> (thereby likely introducing some nice instruction cache savings, too).
> 
> 
> > > General thoughts (maybe just rambling, but that's just my feelings vs.
> > > this mechanism, so maybe it's food for thought):
> > > To me, the existing implementation seems too fond of IRQ fumbling
> > > (i.e., affecting of oh so nicely *unrelated*
> > > outer global environment context stuff).
> > > A proper implementation wouldn't need *any* knowledge of this
> > > (i.e., modifying such "IRQ disable" side effects,
> > > to avoid having a scheduler hit and possibly ending up on another node).
> > > 
> > > Thus to me, the whole handling seems somewhat wrong and split
> > > (since there remains the need to deal with scheduler distortion/disruption).
> > > The bare-metal "inner" algorithm should not need to depend on such shenanigans
> > > but simply be able to carry out its task unaffected,
> > > where IRQs are simply always left enabled
> > > (or at least potentially disabled by other kernel components only)
> > > and the code then elegantly/inherently deals with IRQ complications.
> > 
> > I'm not sure I understand your opinion correctly. If my response is
> > wrong, please let me know your thought more correctly.
> 
> I have to admit that I was talking general implementation guidelines
> rather than having a very close look at what can be done *here*.
> Put differently, my goal at this point was just to state weird questions,
> for people to then reason about the bigger picture
> and come to possibly brilliant conclusions ;)
> 
> 
> > IRQ manipulation is done for synchronization of array cache, not for
> > freezing allocation context. That is just side-effect. As Christoph
> > said, slab operation could be executed in interrupt context so we
> > should protect array cache even if we are in process context.
> 
> Ah, that clarifies collision areas, thanks!
> 
> In general the goal likely should be
> to attempt to do as many things "in parallel" (guaranteed-collision-free,
> via cleanly instance-separate data) as possible,
> and then once the result has been calculated,
> do quick/short updating (insertion/deletion)
> of the shared/contended resource (here: array cache)
> with the necessary protection (IRQs disabled, in this case).
> Via some layering tricks, one could manage to do all the calculation handling
> without even drawing in any "IRQ management" dependency
> to that inner code part ("code file"?),
> but the array cache management would then remain IRQ-affected
> (in those outer layers which know that they are unfortunately still drawn down
> by an annoying dependency on IRQ shenanigans).
> Or, in other words: achieve a clean separation of layers
> so that it's obvious which ones get hampered by annoying dependencies
> and which ones are able to carry out their job unaffected.

Hello,

Thanks for good explanation.
I understand your suggestion and it sounds good. However, most of
inner operations in SLAB are also affected by IRQ because they aim at
updating array cache. :) If operation is done only in signle-context,
more optimization may be possible, but, not yet possible.

Anyway, your suggestion makes me relaize a big picture to go. I will
keep this in mind. Thank you.

> 
> 
> And for the "disruption via interrupt context" part:
> we currently seem to have "synchronous" handling,
> where one needs to forcefully block access to a shared/contended resource
> (which would be done
> either via annoying mutex contention,
> or even via wholesale blocking of IRQ execution).
> To remove/reduce friction,
> one should either remove any additional foreign-context access to that resource,
> thereby making this implementation cleanly (if woefully)
> single-context only (as Christoph seems to be intending,
> by removing SLAB access from IRQ handlers?),
> or ideally implement fully parallel instance-separate data management
> (but I guess that's not what one would want
> for a global multi-sized-area and thus fragmentation-avoiding SL*B allocator,
> since that would mean splitting global memory resources
> into per-instance areas?).
> 
> Alternatively, one could go for "asynchronous" handling,
> where SL*B updates of any foreign-context (but not main-context)
> are *delayed*,
> by merely queuing them into a simple submission queue
> which then will be delay-applied by main-context
> either once main-context enters a certain "quiet" state (e.g. context switch?),
> or once main-context needs to actively take into account
> these effects of foreign-context registrations.
> But for an allocator (memory manager),
> such "asynchronous" handling might be completely impossible anyway,
> since it might need to have a consistent global view,
> of all resources at all times
> (--> we're back to having a synchronous handling requirement,
> via lock contention).

While implementing this patchset, I also thought having another queue
for foreign context, but, didn't go that direction since it needs
complicated code and I can't easily estimate trade-off of that
implementation in terms of performance.

> 
> 
> > > These thoughts also mean that I'm unsure (difficult to determine)
> > > of whether this change is good (i.e. a clean step in the right direction),
> > > or whether instead the implementation could easily directly be made
> > > fully independent from IRQ constraints.
> > 
> > Is there any issue that this change prevent further improvment?
> > I think that we can go right direction easily as soon as we find
> > a better solution even if this change is merged.
> 
> Ah, I see you're skillfully asking the right forward progress question ;)
> 
> To which I'm currently limited to saying
> that from my side there are no objections to be added to the list
> (other than the minor mechanical parts directly stated in my review).

Okay.

Thanks.

--
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>