On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Joel Fernandes <agnel.joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 12:00:31PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> Ok. So I'll submit a patch with mutex for purge_lock and use
>>> cond_resched_lock for the vmap_area_lock as you suggested. I'll also
>>> drop the lazy_max_pages to 8MB as Andi suggested to reduce the lock
>>> hold time. Let me know if you have any objections.
>>
>> The downside of using a mutex here though, is that we may be called
>> from contexts that cannot sleep (alloc_vmap_area), or reschedule for
>> that matter! If we change the notion of purged, we can forgo the mutex
>> in favour of spinning on the direct reclaim path. That just leaves the
>> complication of whether to use cond_resched_lock() or a lock around
>> the individual __free_vmap_area().
>
> Good point. I agree with you. I think we still need to know if purging
> is in progress to preserve previous trylock behavior. How about
> something like the following diff? (diff is untested).
>
> This drops the purge lock and uses a ref count to indicate if purging
> is in progress, so that callers who don't want to purge if purging is
> already in progress can be kept happy. Also I am reducing vmap_lazy_nr
> as we go, and, not all at once, so that we don't reduce the counter
> too soon as we're not holding purge lock anymore. Lastly, I added the
> cond_resched as you suggested.
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index f2481cb..5616ca4 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ void set_iounmap_nonlazy(void)
> static void __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end,
> int sync, int force_flush)
> {
> - static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(purge_lock);
> + static atomic_t purging;
> struct llist_node *valist;
> struct vmap_area *va;
> struct vmap_area *n_va;
> @@ -638,10 +638,10 @@ static void __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long
> *start, unsigned long *end,
> * the case that isn't actually used at the moment anyway.
> */
> if (!sync && !force_flush) {
> - if (!spin_trylock(&purge_lock))
> + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&purging, 0, 1))
> return;
> } else
> - spin_lock(&purge_lock);
> + atomic_inc(&purging);
>
> if (sync)
> purge_fragmented_blocks_allcpus();
> @@ -655,9 +655,6 @@ static void __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long
> *start, unsigned long *end,
> nr += (va->va_end - va->va_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> }
>
> - if (nr)
> - atomic_sub(nr, &vmap_lazy_nr);
> -
> if (nr || force_flush)
> flush_tlb_kernel_range(*start, *end);
>
> @@ -665,9 +662,11 @@ static void __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long
> *start, unsigned long *end,
> spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> llist_for_each_entry_safe(va, n_va, valist, purge_list)
> __free_vmap_area(va);
> + atomic_sub(1, &vmap_lazy_nr);
> + cond_resched_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
For this particular hunk, I forgot the braces. sorry, I meant to say:
@@ -665,9 +662,11 @@ static void __purge_vmap_area_lazy(unsigned long
*start, unsigned long *end,
spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
- llist_for_each_entry_safe(va, n_va, valist, purge_list)
+ llist_for_each_entry_safe(va, n_va, valist,
purge_list) {
__free_vmap_area(va);
+ atomic_sub(1, &vmap_lazy_nr);
+ cond_resched_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
+ }
spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
Regards,
Joel
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>