From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f69.google.com (mail-pg0-f69.google.com [74.125.83.69]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E08B6B0003 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:47:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id s6so247163pgn.3 for ; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:47:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-130.freemail.mail.aliyun.com. [115.124.30.130]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v10-v6si12038633plo.61.2018.03.06.16.47.41 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:47:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4 v2] Define killable version for access_remote_vm() and use it in fs/proc References: <1519691151-101999-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20180306124540.d8b5f6da97ab69a49566f950@linux-foundation.org> <20180306134139.375e15abab173329962f7d5a@linux-foundation.org> From: Yang Shi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:47:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180306134139.375e15abab173329962f7d5a@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: mingo@kernel.org, adobriyan@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes On 3/6/18 1:41 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:17:37 -0800 Yang Shi wrote: > >> >> It just mitigates the hung task warning, can't resolve the mmap_sem >> scalability issue. Furthermore, waiting on pure uninterruptible state >> for reading /proc sounds unnecessary. It doesn't wait for I/O completion. > OK. Since we already had down_read_killable() APIs available, IMHO, giving application a chance to abort at some circumstances sounds not bad. > >>> Where the heck are we holding mmap_sem for so long? Can that be fixed? >> The mmap_sem is held for unmapping a large map which has every single >> page mapped. This is not a issue in real production code. Just found it >> by running vm-scalability on a machine with ~600GB memory. >> >> AFAIK, I don't see any easy fix for the mmap_sem scalability issue. I >> saw range locking patches (https://lwn.net/Articles/723648/) were >> floating around. But, it may not help too much on the case that a large >> map with every single page mapped. > Well it sounds fairly simple to mitigate? Simplistically: don't unmap > 600G in a single hit; do it 1G at a time, dropping mmap_sem each time. > A smarter version might only come up for air if there are mmap_sem > waiters and if it has already done some work. I don't think we have > any particular atomicity requirements when unmapping? I'm not quite sure. But, the existing applications may assume munmap is atomic? Thanks, Yang > -- 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: email@kvack.org