On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:17:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Optimize page_lock_anon_vma() by removing the atomic ref count
> > ops from the fast path.
> >
> > Rather complicates the code a lot, but might be worth it.
>
> Some questions and a disclaimer below.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/rmap.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ static inline struct anon_vma *anon_vma_
> > void anon_vma_free(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> > {
> > VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&anon_vma->ref));
> > + /*
> > + * Sync against the anon_vma->lock, so that we can hold the
> > + * lock without requiring a reference. See page_lock_anon_vma().
> > + */
> > + mutex_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
>
> On some systems, the CPU is permitted to pull references into the critical
> section from either side. So, do we also need an smp_mb() here?
>
> > + mutex_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
>
> So, a question...
>
> Can the above mutex be contended? If yes, what happens when the
> competing mutex_lock() acquires the lock at this point? Or, worse yet,
> after the kmem_cache_free()?
>
> If no, what do we accomplish by acquiring the lock?
The thing we gain is that when the holder of the lock finds a !0
refcount it knows it can't go away because any free will first wait to
acquire the lock.
> If the above mutex can be contended, can we fix by substituting
> synchronize_rcu_expedited()? Which will soon require some scalability
> attention if it gets used here, but what else is new? ;-)
No, synchronize_rcu_expedited() will not work here, there is no RCU read
side that covers the full usage of the anon_vma (there can't be, it
needs to sleep).
> > kmem_cache_free(anon_vma_cachep, anon_vma);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -291,7 +297,7 @@ void __init anon_vma_init(void)
> >
> > /*
> > * Getting a lock on a stable anon_vma from a page off the LRU is
> > - * tricky: page_lock_anon_vma relies on RCU to guard against the races.
> > + * tricky: anon_vma_get relies on RCU to guard against the races.
> > */
> > struct anon_vma *anon_vma_get(struct page *page)
> > {
> > @@ -320,12 +326,70 @@ out:
> > return anon_vma;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Similar to anon_vma_get(), however it relies on the anon_vma->lock
> > + * to pin the object. However since we cannot wait for the mutex
> > + * acquisition inside the RCU read lock, we use the ref count
> > + * in the slow path.
> > + */
> > struct anon_vma *page_lock_anon_vma(struct page *page)
> > {
> > - struct anon_vma *anon_vma = anon_vma_get(page);
> > + struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> > + unsigned long anon_mapping;
> > +
> > +again:
> > + rcu_read_lock();
>
> This is interesting. You have an RCU read-side critical section with
> no rcu_dereference().
>
> This strange state of affairs is actually legal (assuming that
> anon_mapping is the RCU-protected structure) because all dereferences
> of the anon_vma variable are atomic operations that guarantee ordering
> (the mutex_trylock() and the atomic_inc_not_zero().
>
> The other dereferences (the atomic_read()s) are under the lock, so
> are also OK assuming that the lock is held when initializing and
> updating these fields, and even more OK due to the smp_rmb() below.
>
> But see below.
Right so the only thing rcu_read_lock() does here is create the
guarantee that anon_vma is safe to dereference (it lives on a
SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU slab).
But yes, I suppose that page->mapping read that now uses ACCESS_ONCE()
would actually want to be an rcu_dereference(), since that both provides
the ACCESS_ONCE() as the read-depend barrier that I thing would be
needed.
> > + anon_mapping = (unsigned long) ACCESS_ONCE(page->mapping);
> > + if ((anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS) != PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
> > + goto unlock;
> > + if (!page_mapped(page))
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > + anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> > + if (!mutex_trylock(&anon_vma->lock)) {
> > + /*
> > + * We failed to acquire the lock, take a ref so we can
> > + * drop the RCU read lock and sleep on it.
> > + */
> > + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&anon_vma->ref)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Failed to get a ref, we're dead, bail.
> > + */
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> >
> > - if (anon_vma)
> > mutex_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > + /*
> > + * We got the lock, drop the temp. ref, if it was the last
> > + * one free it and bail.
> > + */
> > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->ref)) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > + anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + }
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + /*
> > + * Got the lock, check we're still alive. Seeing a ref
> > + * here guarantees the object will stay alive due to
> > + * anon_vma_free() syncing against the lock we now hold.
> > + */
> > + smp_rmb(); /* Order against anon_vma_put() */
>
> This is ordering the fetch into anon_vma against the atomic_read() below?
> If so, smp_read_barrier_depends() will cover it more cheaply. Alternatively,
> use rcu_dereference() when fetching into anon_vma.
>
> Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this barrier?
Yes, it is:
atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->ref) /* implies mb */
smp_rmb();
atomic_read(&anon_vma->ref);
> (Disclaimer: I have not yet found anon_vma_put(), so I am assuming that
> anon_vma_free() plays the role of a grace period.)
Yes, that lives in one of the other patches (does not exist in
mainline).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
