Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: vmalloc: Remove a global vmap_blocks xarray

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

Hello, Lorenzo!

> >  /*
> > - * XArray of vmap blocks, indexed by address, to quickly find a vmap block
> > - * in the free path. Could get rid of this if we change the API to return a
> > - * "cookie" from alloc, to be passed to free. But no big deal yet.
> > + * In order to fast access to any "vmap_block" associated with a
> > + * specific address, we store them into a per-cpu xarray. A hash
> > + * function is addr_to_vbq() whereas a key is a vb->va->va_start
> > + * value.
> > + *
> > + * Please note, a vmap_block_queue, which is a per-cpu, is not
> > + * serialized by a raw_smp_processor_id() current CPU, instead
> > + * it is chosen based on a CPU-index it belongs to, i.e. it is
> > + * a hash-table.
> > + *
> > + * An example:
> > + *
> > + *  CPU_1  CPU_2  CPU_0
> > + *    |      |      |
> > + *    V      V      V
> > + * 0     10     20     30     40     50     60
> > + * |------|------|------|------|------|------|...<vmap address space>
> > + *   CPU0   CPU1   CPU2   CPU0   CPU1   CPU2
> > + *
> > + * - CPU_1 invokes vm_unmap_ram(6), 6 belongs to CPU0 zone, thus
> > + *   it access: CPU0/INDEX0 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock;
> > + *
> > + * - CPU_2 invokes vm_unmap_ram(11), 11 belongs to CPU1 zone, thus
> > + *   it access: CPU1/INDEX1 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock;
> > + *
> > + * - CPU_0 invokes vm_unmap_ram(20), 20 belongs to CPU2 zone, thus
> > + *   it access: CPU2/INDEX2 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock.
> >   */
> 
> OK so if I understand this correctly, you're overloading the per-CPU
> vmap_block_queue array to use as a simple hash based on the address and
> relying on the xa_lock() in xa_insert() to serialise in case of contention?
> 
> I like the general heft of your comment but I feel this could be spelled
> out a little more clearly, something like:-
> 
>   In order to have fast access to any vmap_block object associated with a
>   specific address, we use a hash.
> 
>   Rather than waste space on defining a new hash table  we take advantage
>   of the fact we already have a static per-cpu array vmap_block_queue.
> 
>   This is already used for per-CPU access to the block queue, however we
>   overload this to _also_ act as a vmap_block hash. The hash function is
>   addr_to_vbq() which hashes on vb->va->va_start.
> 
>   This then uses per_cpu() to lookup the _index_ rather than the
>   _cpu_. Each vmap_block_queue contains an xarray of vmap blocks which are
>   indexed on the same key as the hash (vb->va->va_start).
> 
>   xarray read acceses are protected by RCU lock and inserts are protected
>   by a spin lock so there is no risk of a race here.
> 
/*
 * In order to fast access to any "vmap_block" associated with a
 * specific address, we use a hash.
 *
 * A per-cpu vmap_block_queue is used in both ways, to serialize
 * an access to free block chains among CPUs(alloc path) and it
 * also acts as a vmap_block hash(alloc/free paths). It means we
 * overload it, since we already have the per-cpu array which is
 * used as a hash table.
 *
 * A hash function is addr_to_vbq() which hashes any address to
 * a specific index(in a hash) it belongs to. This then uses a
 * per_cpu() macro to access the array with specific index.
 *
 * An example:
 *
 *  CPU_1  CPU_2  CPU_0
 *    |      |      |
 *    V      V      V
 * 0     10     20     30     40     50     60
 * |------|------|------|------|------|------|...<vmap address space>
 *   CPU0   CPU1   CPU2   CPU0   CPU1   CPU2
 *
 * - CPU_1 invokes vm_unmap_ram(6), 6 belongs to CPU0 zone, thus
 *   it access: CPU0/INDEX0 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock;
 *
 * - CPU_2 invokes vm_unmap_ram(11), 11 belongs to CPU1 zone, thus
 *   it access: CPU1/INDEX1 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock;
 *
 * - CPU_0 invokes vm_unmap_ram(20), 20 belongs to CPU2 zone, thus
 *   it access: CPU2/INDEX2 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock.
 *
 * This technique allows almost remove a lock-contention in locking
 * primitives which protect insert/remove operations.
 */
Are you find with it?

--
Uladzislau Rezki