linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: JaeJoon Jung <rgbi3307@gmail.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org>
Cc: Asier Gutierrez <gutierrez.asier@huawei-partners.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org,  damon@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	 wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, artem.kuzin@huawei.com,
	 stepanov.anatoly@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] mm: improve call_controls_lock
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:15:00 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHOvCC4FhpLrknhvWbDd=cxaLUyxHFkFxBDYSC3waeg4FC+TBg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251229152250.78975-1-sj@kernel.org>

On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 at 00:23, SeongJae Park <sj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello Asier,
>
>
> Thank you for sending this patch!
>
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:55:32 +0000 Asier Gutierrez <gutierrez.asier@huawei-partners.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a minor patch set for a call_controls_lock synchronization improvement.
>
> Please break description lines to not exceed 75 characters per line.
>
> >
> > Spinlocks are faster than mutexes, even when the mutex takes the fast
> > path. Hence, this patch replaces the mutex call_controls_lock with a spinlock.
>
> But call_controls_lock is not being used on performance critical part.
> Actually, most of DAMON code is not performance critical.  I really appreciate
> your patch, but I have to say I don't think this change is really needed now.
> Please let me know if I'm missing something.

Paradoxically, when it comes to locking, spin_lock is better than
mutex_lock
because "most of DAMON code is not performance critical."

DAMON code only accesses the ctx belonging to kdamond itself. For
example:
kdamond.0 --> ctx.0
kdamond.1 --> ctx.1
kdamond.2 --> ctx.2
kdamond.# --> ctx.#

There is no cross-approach as shown below:
kdamond.0 --> ctx.1
kdamond.1 --> ctx.2
kdamond.2 --> ctx.0

Only the data belonging to kdamond needs to be resolved for concurrent access.
most DAMON code needs to lock/unlock briefly when add/del linked
lists,
so spin_lock is effective.  If you handle it with a mutex, it becomes
more
complicated because the rescheduling occurs as a context switch occurs
inside the kernel.  Moreover, since the call_controls_lock that is
currently
being raised as a problem only occurs in two places, the kdamon_call()
loop
and the damon_call() function, it is effective to handle it with a
spin_lock
as shown below.

@@ -1502,14 +1501,15 @@ int damon_call(struct damon_ctx *ctx, struct
damon_call_control *control)
        control->canceled = false;
        INIT_LIST_HEAD(&control->list);

-       mutex_lock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
+       spin_lock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
+       /* damon_is_running */
        if (ctx->kdamond) {
                list_add_tail(&control->list, &ctx->call_controls);
        } else {
-               mutex_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
+               spin_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
                return -EINVAL;
        }
-       mutex_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
+       spin_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);

        if (control->repeat)
                return 0;

>
> >
> > Initial benchmarking shows the following results
> >
> >
> > # bpftrace -e 'kprobe:kdamond_call { @start[tid] = nsecs; }
>
> Commit log shouldn't start with '#'.  Please consider indenting the above
> command and below outputs of it.
>
>
> Thanks,
> SJ
>
> [...]
>


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-12-31  2:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-29 14:55 Asier Gutierrez
2025-12-29 15:22 ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-30  9:02   ` Gutierrez Asier
2025-12-31  5:01     ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-31  2:15   ` JaeJoon Jung [this message]
2025-12-31  4:59     ` SeongJae Park
2025-12-31  6:10       ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-31  7:51         ` JaeJoon Jung
2025-12-31 15:32         ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  1:11           ` JaeJoon Jung
2026-01-01  2:00             ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  2:34               ` JaeJoon Jung
2026-01-01  1:07       ` JaeJoon Jung
2026-01-01  1:51         ` SeongJae Park
2026-01-01  2:29           ` JaeJoon Jung

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='CAHOvCC4FhpLrknhvWbDd=cxaLUyxHFkFxBDYSC3waeg4FC+TBg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=rgbi3307@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=artem.kuzin@huawei.com \
    --cc=damon@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=gutierrez.asier@huawei-partners.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=sj@kernel.org \
    --cc=stepanov.anatoly@huawei.com \
    --cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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