在 2020/8/13 上午12:51, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:44 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 在 2020/8/11 下午10:47, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>>> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:23 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 2020/8/10 下午10:41, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:10 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 在 2020/8/7 下午10:51, Alexander Duyck 写道:
>>>>>>> I wonder if this entire section shouldn't be restructured. This is the
>>>>>>> only spot I can see where we are resetting the LRU flag instead of
>>>>>>> pulling the page from the LRU list with the lock held. Looking over
>>>>>>> the code it seems like something like that should be possible. I am
>>>>>>> not sure the LRU lock is really protecting us in either the
>>>>>>> PageCompound check nor the skip bits. It seems like holding a
>>>>>>> reference on the page should prevent it from switching between
>>>>>>> compound or not, and the skip bits are per pageblock with the LRU bits
>>>>>>> being per node/memcg which I would think implies that we could have
>>>>>>> multiple LRU locks that could apply to a single skip bit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't find problem yet on compound or skip bit usage. Would you clarify the
>>>>>> issue do you concerned?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> The point I was getting at is that the LRU lock is being used to
>>>>> protect these and with your changes I don't think that makes sense
>>>>> anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> The skip bits are per-pageblock bits. With your change the LRU lock is
>>>>> now per memcg first and then per node. As such I do not believe it
>>>>> really provides any sort of exclusive access to the skip bits. I still
>>>>> have to look into this more, but it seems like you need a lock per
>>>>> either section or zone that can be used to protect those bits and deal
>>>>> with this sooner rather than waiting until you have found an LRU page.
>>>>> The one part that is confusing though is that the definition of the
>>>>> skip bits seems to call out that they are a hint since they are not
>>>>> protected by a lock, but that is exactly what has been happening here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The skip bits are safe here, since even it race with other skip action,
>>>> It will still skip out. The skip action is try not to compaction too much,
>>>> not a exclusive action needs avoid race.
>>>
>>> That would be the case if it didn't have the impact that they
>>> currently do on the compaction process. What I am getting at is that a
>>> race was introduced when you placed this test between the clearing of
>>> the LRU flag and the actual pulling of the page from the LRU list. So
>>> if you tested the skip bits before clearing the LRU flag then I would
>>> be okay with the code, however because it is triggering an abort after
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for comments and suggestions!
>>
>> I have tried your suggestion:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> mm/compaction.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>> index b99c96c4862d..6c881dee8c9a 100644
>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>> @@ -988,6 +988,13 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> if (__isolate_lru_page_prepare(page, isolate_mode) != 0)
>> goto isolate_fail_put;
>>
>> + /* Try get exclusive access under lock */
>> + if (!skip_updated) {
>> + skip_updated = true;
>> + if (test_and_set_skip(cc, page, low_pfn))
>> + goto isolate_fail_put;
>> + }
>> +
>> /* Try isolate the page */
>> if (!TestClearPageLRU(page))
>> goto isolate_fail_put;
>
> I would have made this much sooner. Probably before you call
> get_page_unless_zero so as to avoid the unnecessary atomic operations.
>
>> @@ -1006,13 +1013,6 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>>
>> lruvec_memcg_debug(lruvec, page);
>>
>> - /* Try get exclusive access under lock */
>> - if (!skip_updated) {
>> - skip_updated = true;
>> - if (test_and_set_skip(cc, page, low_pfn))
>> - goto isolate_abort;
>> - }
>> -
>> /*
>> * Page become compound since the non-locked check,
>> * and it's on LRU. It can only be a THP so the order
>> --
>>
>> Performance of case-lru-file-mmap-read in vm-scalibity is dropped a bit. not
>> helpful
>
> So one issue with this change is that it is still too late to be of
> much benefit. Really you should probably be doing this much sooner,
> for example somewhere before the get_page_unless_zero(). Also the
> thing that still has me scratching my head is the "Try get exclusive
> access under lock" comment. The function declaration says this is
> supposed to be a hint, but we were using the LRU lock to synchronize
> it. I'm wondering if we should really be protecting this with the zone
> lock since we are modifying the pageblock flags which also contain the
> migration type value for the pageblock and are only modified while
> holding the zone lock.
zone lock is probability better. you can try and test.
>
>>> the LRU flag is cleared then you are creating a situation where
>>> multiple processes will be stomping all over each other as you can
>>> have each thread essentially take a page via the LRU flag, but only
>>> one thread will process a page and it could skip over all other pages
>>> that preemptively had their LRU flag cleared.
>>
>> It increase a bit crowd here, but lru_lock do reduce some them, and skip_bit
>> could stop each other in a array check(bitmap). So compare to whole node
>> lru_lock, the net profit is clear in patch 17.
>
> My concern is that what you can end up with is multiple threads all
> working over the same pageblock for isolation. With the old code the
> LRU lock was used to make certain that test_and_set_skip was being
> synchronized on the first page in the pageblock so you would only have
> one thread going through and working a single pageblock. However after
> your changes it doesn't seem like the test_and_set_skip has that
> protection since only one thread will ever be able to successfully
> call it for the first page in the pageblock assuming that the LRU flag
> is set on the first page in the pageblock block.
>
>>>
>>> If you take a look at the test_and_set_skip the function only acts on
>>> the pageblock aligned PFN for a given range. WIth the changes you have
>>> in place now that would mean that only one thread would ever actually
>>> call this function anyway since the first PFN would take the LRU flag
>>> so no other thread could follow through and test or set the bit as
>>
>> Is this good for only one process could do test_and_set_skip? is that
>> the 'skip' meaning to be?
>
> So only one thread really getting to fully use test_and_set_skip is
> good, however the issue is that there is nothing to synchronize the
> testing from the other threads. As a result the other threads could
> have isolated other pages within the pageblock before the thread that
> is calling test_and_set_skip will get to complete the setting of the
> skip bit. This will result in isolation failures for the thread that
> set the skip bit which may be undesirable behavior.
>
> With the old code the threads were all synchronized on testing the
> first PFN in the pageblock while holding the LRU lock and that is what
> we lost. My concern is the cases where skip_on_failure == true are
> going to fail much more often now as the threads can easily interfere
> with each other.
I have a patch to fix this, which is on
https://github.com/alexshi/linux.git lrunext
>
>>> well. The expectation before was that all threads would encounter this
>>> test and either proceed after setting the bit for the first PFN or
>>> abort after testing the first PFN. With you changes only the first
>>> thread actually runs this test and then it and the others will likely
>>> encounter multiple failures as they are all clearing LRU bits
>>> simultaneously and tripping each other up. That is why the skip bit
>>> must have a test and set done before you even get to the point of
>>> clearing the LRU flag.
>>
>> It make the things warse in my machine, would you like to have a try by yourself?
>
> I plan to do that. I have already been working on a few things to
> clean up and optimize your patch set further. I will try to submit an
> RFC this evening so we can discuss.
>
Glad to see your new code soon. Would you like do it base on
https://github.com/alexshi/linux.git lrunext
>>>
>>>>> The point I was getting at with the PageCompound check is that instead
>>>>> of needing the LRU lock you should be able to look at PageCompound as
>>>>> soon as you call get_page_unless_zero() and preempt the need to set
>>>>> the LRU bit again. Instead of trying to rely on the LRU lock to
>>>>> guarantee that the page hasn't been merged you could just rely on the
>>>>> fact that you are holding a reference to it so it isn't going to
>>>>> switch between being compound or order 0 since it cannot be freed. It
>>>>> spoils the idea I originally had of combining the logic for
>>>>> get_page_unless_zero and TestClearPageLRU into a single function, but
>>>>> the advantage is you aren't clearing the LRU flag unless you are
>>>>> actually going to pull the page from the LRU list.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I still can not follow you here. Compound code part is unchanged
>>>> and follow the original logical. So would you like to pose a new code to
>>>> see if its works?
>>>
>>> No there are significant changes as you reordered all of the
>>> operations. Prior to your change the LRU bit was checked, but not
>>> cleared before testing for PageCompound. Now you are clearing it
>>> before you are testing if it is a compound page. So if compaction is
>>> running we will be seeing the pages in the LRU stay put, but the
>>> compound bit flickering off and on if the compound page is encountered
>>> with the wrong or NULL lruvec. What I was suggesting is that the
>>
>> The lruvec could be wrong or NULL here, that is the base stone of whole
>> patchset.
>
> Sorry I had a typo in my comment as well as it is the LRU bit that
> will be flickering, not the compound. The goal here is to avoid
> clearing the LRU bit unless we are sure we are going to take the
> lruvec lock and pull the page from the list.
>
>>> PageCompound test probably doesn't need to be concerned with the lock
>>> after your changes. You could test it after you call
>>> get_page_unless_zero() and before you call
>>> __isolate_lru_page_prepare(). Instead of relying on the LRU lock to
>>> protect us from the page switching between compound and not we would
>>> be relying on the fact that we are holding a reference to the page so
>>> it should not be freed and transition between compound or not.
>>>
>>
>> I have tried the patch as your suggested, it has no clear help on performance
>> on above vm-scaliblity case. Maybe it's due to we checked the same thing
>> before lock already.
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>> index b99c96c4862d..cf2ac5148001 100644
>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>> @@ -985,6 +985,16 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> if (unlikely(!get_page_unless_zero(page)))
>> goto isolate_fail;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Page become compound since the non-locked check,
>> + * and it's on LRU. It can only be a THP so the order
>> + * is safe to read and it's 0 for tail pages.
>> + */
>> + if (unlikely(PageCompound(page) && !cc->alloc_contig)) {
>> + low_pfn += compound_nr(page) - 1;
>> + goto isolate_fail_put;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (__isolate_lru_page_prepare(page, isolate_mode) != 0)
>> goto isolate_fail_put;
>>
>> @@ -1013,16 +1023,6 @@ static bool too_many_isolated(pg_data_t *pgdat)
>> goto isolate_abort;
>> }
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Page become compound since the non-locked check,
>> - * and it's on LRU. It can only be a THP so the order
>> - * is safe to read and it's 0 for tail pages.
>> - */
>> - if (unlikely(PageCompound(page) && !cc->alloc_contig)) {
>> - low_pfn += compound_nr(page) - 1;
>> - SetPageLRU(page);
>> - goto isolate_fail_put;
>> - }
>> } else
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>
>
> So actually there is more we could do than just this. Specifically a
> few lines below the rcu_read_lock there is yet another PageCompound
> check that sets low_pfn yet again. So in theory we could combine both
> of those and modify the code so you end up with something more like:
> @@ -968,6 +974,16 @@ isolate_migratepages_block(struct compact_control
> *cc, unsigned long low_pfn,
> if (unlikely(!get_page_unless_zero(page)))
> goto isolate_fail;
>
> + if (PageCompound(page)) {
> + const unsigned int order = compound_order(page);
> +
> + if (likely(order < MAX_ORDER))
> + low_pfn += (1UL << order) - 1;
> +
> + if (unlikely(!cc->alloc_contig))
> + goto isolate_fail_put;
>
The current don't check this unless locked changed. But anyway check it
every page may have no performance impact.
+ }
> +
> if (__isolate_lru_page_prepare(page, isolate_mode) != 0)
> goto isolate_fail_put;
>
> Doing this you would be more likely to skip over the entire compound
> page in a single jump should you not be able to either take the LRU
> bit or encounter a busy page in __isolate_Lru_page_prepare. I had
> copied this bit from an earlier check and modified it as I was not
> sure I can guarantee that this is a THP since we haven't taken the LRU
> lock yet. However I believe the page cannot be split up while we are
> holding the extra reference so the PageCompound flag and order should
> not change until we call put_page.
>
It looks like the lock_page protect this instead of get_page that just works
after split func called.
Thanks
Alex
