On 9/15/18 3:10 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 04:34:56AM +0800, Yang Shi wrote:
Regression and performance data:
Did the below regression test with setting thresh to 4K manually in the code:
* Full LTP
* Trinity (munmap/all vm syscalls)
* Stress-ng: mmap/mmapfork/mmapfixed/mmapaddr/mmapmany/vm
* mm-tests: kernbench, phpbench, sysbench-mariadb, will-it-scale
* vm-scalability
With the patches, exclusive mmap_sem hold time when munmap a 80GB address
space on a machine with 32 cores of E5-2680 @ 2.70GHz dropped to us level
from second.
munmap_test-15002 [008] 594.380138: funcgraph_entry: | __vm_munmap {
munmap_test-15002 [008] 594.380146: funcgraph_entry: !2485684 us | unmap_region();
munmap_test-15002 [008] 596.865836: funcgraph_exit: !2485692 us | }
Here the excution time of unmap_region() is used to evaluate the time of
holding read mmap_sem, then the remaining time is used with holding
exclusive lock.
Something I've been wondering about for a while is whether we should "sort"
the readers together. ie if the acquirers look like this:
A write
B read
C read
D write
E read
F read
G write
then we should grant the lock to A, BCEF, D, G rather than A, BC, D, EF, G.
I'm not sure how much this can help to the real world workload.
Typically, there are multi threads to contend for one mmap_sem. So, they
are trying to read/write the same address space. There might be
dependency or synchronization among them. Sorting read together might
break the dependency?
Thanks,
Yang
A quick way to test this is in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common do
something like:
- if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list))
+ if (list_empty(&sem->wait_list)) {
adjustment += RWSEM_WAITING_BIAS;
+ list_add(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
+ } else {
+ struct rwsem_waiter *first = list_first_entry(&sem->wait_list,
+ struct rwsem_waiter, list);
+ if (first.type == RWSEM_WAITING_FOR_READ)
+ list_add(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
+ else
+ list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
+ }
- list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &sem->wait_list);
It'd be interesting to know if this makes any difference with your tests.
(this isn't perfect, of course; it'll fail to sort readers together if there's
a writer at the head of the queue; eg:
A write
B write
C read
D write
E read
F write
G read
but it won't do any worse than we have at the moment).
