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