From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org,
dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 17:29:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce7a039a-2697-f16e-b0b3-f6ae41391682@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170706144852.fwtuygj4ikcjmqat@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 06/07/2017 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 03:46:59PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> On 05/07/2017 20:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 07:52:33PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> @@ -2294,8 +2295,19 @@ static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence))
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>> - pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>>>> - vmf->address, &ptl);
>
>>>> + ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>> + pte = pte_offset_map(vmf->pmd, vmf->address);
>>>> + if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(ptl))) {
>>>> + pte_unmap(pte);
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence)) {
>>>> pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
>>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> Right, so if you look at my earlier patches you'll see I did something
>>> quite disgusting here.
>>>
>>> Not sure that wants repeating, but I cannot remember why I thought this
>>> deadlock didn't exist anymore.
>>
>> Regarding the deadlock I did face it on my Power victim node, so I guess it
>> is still there, and the stack traces are quiet explicit.
>> Am I missing something here ?
>
> No, you are right in that the deadlock is quite real. What I cannot
> remember is what made me think to remove the really 'wonderful' code I
> had to deal with it.
>
> That said, you might want to look at how often you terminate the
> speculation because of your trylock failing. If that shows up at all we
> might need to do something about it.
Based on the benchmarks I run, it doesn't fail so much often, but I was
thinking about adding some counters here. The system is accounting for
major page faults and minor ones, respectively current->maj_flt and
current->min_flt. I was wondering if an additional type like async_flt will
be welcome or if there is another smarter way to get that metric.
Feel free to advise.
Thanks
Laurent.
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-06 15:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-16 17:52 [RFC v5 00/11] Speculative page faults Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 01/11] mm: Dont assume page-table invariance during faults Laurent Dufour
2017-07-07 7:07 ` Balbir Singh
2017-07-10 17:48 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-07-11 4:26 ` Balbir Singh
2017-08-08 10:04 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 9:45 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:11 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 02/11] mm: Prepare for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:24 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 10:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 03/11] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock " Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:16 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 04/11] mm: VMA sequence count Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 10:59 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 11:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 05/11] mm: fix lock dependency against mapping->i_mmap_rwsem Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 11:17 ` Anshuman Khandual
2017-08-08 12:20 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 12:49 ` Jan Kara
2017-08-08 13:08 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-08-08 13:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-08-08 13:34 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 06/11] mm: Protect VMA modifications using VMA sequence count Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 07/11] mm: RCU free VMAs Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 08/11] mm: Provide speculative fault infrastructure Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour
2017-07-05 18:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 13:46 ` Laurent Dufour
2017-07-06 14:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 15:29 ` Laurent Dufour [this message]
2017-07-06 16:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 10/11] x86/mm: Add speculative pagefault handling Laurent Dufour
2017-06-16 17:52 ` [RFC v5 11/11] powerpc/mm: Add speculative page fault Laurent Dufour
2017-07-03 17:32 ` [RFC v5 00/11] Speculative page faults Laurent Dufour
2017-07-07 1:54 ` Balbir Singh
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=ce7a039a-2697-f16e-b0b3-f6ae41391682@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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