From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FDE9C43603 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:46:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31ED214AF for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="vztcTa4c" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D31ED214AF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6DBE58E0005; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 68CA38E0001; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:46:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5A1A38E0005; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:46:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0159.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.159]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431448E0001 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 012FF2C78 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:46:15 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76256915910.05.able15_539da92d1010c X-HE-Tag: able15_539da92d1010c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4237 Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com [209.85.208.176]) by imf40.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id c19so2794636lji.11 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:46:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=1oTD18PHnAn0TVLX/OWAZDrUxjo+bNPGasgTn5UarrM=; b=vztcTa4c3o/8ke+5AdtKlt9ciWZC5BUkP0WXj97q2W0XVS17qJAj8ASBuFJ3ff5af0 UpegJcmoWXOvrTakRCwwe59d5D+NcIihk0gEmcz1Kdjq1xIijtyGjixbzQqhm7UxOeR4 zdHfAbhXqnWwDeaVzf8pSVP8Bt0DtYcUWOMwheVo73sW3eRVpsbIoSbepKe9WFwk3uUg bPB5At7vBVLPc4mxdq3cCirYL1fZmx/aHbZbpmnj5uU6FoldmxmvLNJvkfnBnLLGxpLM 8uvQLL3dEqPly7mArYG5g7T24W09Zv5QQA5/g09yNw9ZwHfVmn/rMjGsd257qTI12jYG Pf6A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=1oTD18PHnAn0TVLX/OWAZDrUxjo+bNPGasgTn5UarrM=; b=EZ/K3FxAcRz/dqGGD/UtmRHrE0fYX6O7WEU0ly6o1ZPjwZ0A4wMniZIig/UOW+AEnT thqFA2GgmymYGn/GzSmi2P7tLloKbMO97+h3k16PYEsBNwPHYGrRLtJOBymxduTFdW8E W1nU+fiI7ydeHUSxEOLZEpVZAhoLjpWwdSugPf0PgphcvTUR6AZ8OWSsrNRtwfi63ewO Iis9JQv7Q6X8P6SgbSKpdTo+JUtIjmRud/NX9qk5vyNiMv0Gr06AWp6l8a5o3Ij9x0Wc iKGZFE5xIrXMrDG0Nns8UsY8lezmhc6EVwk0jh75HmGWbQo87pdOLc5uFuZIaLXQcbc3 QnZw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWYghK+hYog14Npg02427o/ui8by2n2UrOxV5SfZb6E/3CpdWtP NhFvJOv21xuvUm8nTf+h3glptg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwwW549gMEQ/bBzrVXduxDnsuig+uHG68/eFXLAKlKDU7v7VZVHN0H9tNcSs3HT9qB5AuDayw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8152:: with SMTP id t18mr6375108ljg.255.1576165572971; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u19sm3242194ljk.75.2019.12.12.07.46.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Dec 2019 07:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 92DFA100ABE; Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:46:13 +0300 (+03) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:46:13 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: Splitting the mmap_sem Message-ID: <20191212154613.qrfsqrgb24sj6fcx@box> References: <20191203222147.GV20752@bombadil.infradead.org> <20191212142457.zqp4mawjz7frpyvk@box> <20191212154002.GR32169@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191212154002.GR32169@bombadil.infradead.org> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 07:40:02AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 05:24:57PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 02:21:47PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > My preferred solution to the mmap_sem scalability problem is to allow > > > VMAs to be looked up under the RCU read lock then take a per-VMA lock. > > > I've been focusing on the first half of this problem (looking up VMAs > > > in an RCU-safe data structure) and ignoring the second half (taking a > > > lock while holding the RCU lock). > > > > Do you see this approach to be regression-free for uncontended case? > > I doubt it will not cause regressions for signle-threaded applications... > > Which part of the approach do you think will cause a regression? The > maple tree is quicker to traverse than the rbtree (in our simulations). > Incrementing a refcount on a VMA is surely no slower than acquiring an > uncontended rwsem for read. mmap() and munmap() will get slower, but is > that a problem? Yes, it does. Especially for short-living processes. See kernel build as a workload. -- Kirill A. Shutemov