Re: [PATCH rfc 0/2] mm: cma: make cma_release() non-blocking

["Xiaqing (A)" <saberlily.xia@hisilicon.com>]

On 2020/10/22 10:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 09:54:53AM +0800, Xiaqing (A) wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/10/17 6:52, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>
>>> This small patchset makes cma_release() non-blocking and simplifies
>>> the code in hugetlbfs, where previously we had to temporarily drop
>>> hugetlb_lock around the cma_release() call.
>>>
>>> It should help Zi Yan on his work on 1 GB THPs: splitting a gigantic
>>> THP under a memory pressure requires a cma_release() call. If it's
>>> a blocking function, it complicates the already complicated code.
>>> Because there are at least two use cases like this (hugetlbfs is
>>> another example), I believe it's just better to make cma_release()
>>> non-blocking.
>>>
>>> It also makes it more consistent with other memory releasing functions
>>> in the kernel: most of them are non-blocking.
>>>
>>>
>>> Roman Gushchin (2):
>>>     mm: cma: make cma_release() non-blocking
>>>     mm: hugetlb: don't drop hugetlb_lock around cma_release() call
>>>
>>>    mm/cma.c     | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>    mm/hugetlb.c |  6 ------
>>>    2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>> I don't think this patch is a good idea.It transfers part or even all of the time of
>> cma_release to cma_alloc, which is more concerned by performance indicators.
> I'm not quite sure: if cma_alloc() is racing with cma_release(), cma_alloc() will
> wait for the cma_lock mutex anyway. So we don't really transfer anything to cma_alloc().
>
>> On Android phones, CPU resource competition is intense in many scenarios,
>> As a result, kernel threads and workers can be scheduled only after some ticks or more.
>> In this case, the performance of cma_alloc will deteriorate significantly,
>> which is not good news for many services on Android.
> Ok, I agree, if the cpu is heavily loaded, it might affect the total execution time.
>
> If we aren't going into the mutex->spinlock conversion direction (as Mike suggested),
> we can address the performance concerns by introducing a cma_release_nowait() function,
> so that the default cma_release() would work in the old way.
> cma_release_nowait() can set an atomic flag on a cma area, which will cause following
> cma_alloc()'s to flush the release queue. In this case there will be no performance
> penalty unless somebody is using cma_release_nowait().
> Will it work for you?

That looks good to me.

Thanks!

>
> Thank you!
>
>