From: Kairui Song <ryncsn@gmail.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/6] mm/list_lru: Split list_lru lock into per-cgroup scope
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 01:52:51 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241104175257.60853-1-ryncsn@gmail.com> (raw)
From: Kairui Song <kasong@tencent.com>
Currently, every list_lru has a per-node lock that protects adding,
deletion, isolation, and reparenting of all list_lru_one instances
belonging to this list_lru on this node. This lock contention is heavy
when multiple cgroups modify the same list_lru.
This can be alleviated by splitting the lock into per-cgroup scope.
To achieve this, this series reworked and optimized the reparenting
process step by step, making it possible to have a stable list_lru_one,
and making it possible to pin the list_lru_one. Then split the lock
into per-cgroup scope.
The result is ~15% performance gain for simple multi-cgroup tar test
of small files, and reduced LOC. See PATCH 5/6 for test details.
V2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240925171020.32142-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
Updates from V2:
- Collect Acked-by.
- Fix a WARN_ON issue caused by potential compiler optimization issue.
[Dan Carpenter, Naresh Kamboju]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/62a65418-2393-40ec-b462-151605a5efcf@stanley.mountain/
[Applied to "mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope"]
- Fix a BUG_ON issue, V2 forgot to cover user of LRU_STOP. [Usama Arif]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAMgjq7D_OA=vYf5SnNnKXjppPFhDqsbYF--6=cOayKiadxuwrQ@mail.gmail.com/
V1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20240624175313.47329-1-ryncsn@gmail.com/
Updates from V1:
- Collect Review-by.
- Fix a race of initialization issue that may lead to mem leak [Muchun
Song]
- Drop a unrelated and incorrect fix [Shakeel Butt]
- Use VM_WARN_ON instead of WARN_ON for several sanity checks.
Kairui Song (6):
mm/list_lru: don't pass unnecessary key parameters
mm/list_lru: don't export list_lru_add
mm/list_lru: code clean up for reparenting
mm/list_lru: simplify reparenting and initial allocation
mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope
mm/list_lru: simplify the list_lru walk callback function
drivers/android/binder_alloc.c | 8 +-
drivers/android/binder_alloc.h | 2 +-
fs/dcache.c | 4 +-
fs/gfs2/quota.c | 2 +-
fs/inode.c | 5 +-
fs/nfs/nfs42xattr.c | 4 +-
fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 5 +-
fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 -
fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c | 6 +-
include/linux/list_lru.h | 26 ++-
mm/list_lru.c | 383 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +-
mm/workingset.c | 20 +-
mm/zswap.c | 12 +-
14 files changed, 241 insertions(+), 248 deletions(-)
--
2.47.0
next reply other threads:[~2024-11-04 17:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-04 17:52 Kairui Song [this message]
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] mm/list_lru: don't pass unnecessary key parameters Kairui Song
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] mm/list_lru: don't export list_lru_add Kairui Song
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] mm/list_lru: code clean up for reparenting Kairui Song
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] mm/list_lru: simplify reparenting and initial allocation Kairui Song
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] mm/list_lru: split the lock to per-cgroup scope Kairui Song
2024-11-04 17:52 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] mm/list_lru: Simplify the list_lru walk callback function Kairui Song
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=20241104175257.60853-1-ryncsn@gmail.com \
--to=ryncsn@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kasong@tencent.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
/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