On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:08 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:13:18 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Optimize the page_lock_anon_vma() fast path to be one atomic op,
> > instead of two.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
> > ---
> > mm/rmap.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -85,6 +85,29 @@ static inline struct anon_vma *anon_vma_
> > static inline void anon_vma_free(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> > {
> > VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&anon_vma->refcount));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Synchronize against page_lock_anon_vma() such that
> > + * we can safely hold the lock without the anon_vma getting
> > + * freed.
> > + *
> > + * Relies on the full mb implied by the atomic_dec_and_test() from
> > + * put_anon_vma() against the acquire barrier implied by
> > + * mutex_trylock() from page_lock_anon_vma(). This orders:
> > + *
> > + * page_lock_anon_vma() VS put_anon_vma()
> > + * mutex_trylock() atomic_dec_and_test()
> > + * LOCK MB
> > + * atomic_read() mutex_is_locked()
> > + *
> > + * LOCK should suffice since the actual taking of the lock must
> > + * happen _before_ what follows.
> > + */
> > + if (mutex_is_locked(&anon_vma->root->mutex)) {
> > + anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
> > + anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> > + }
> > +
> > kmem_cache_free(anon_vma_cachep, anon_vma);
> > }
>
> Did we need to include all this stuff in uniprocessor builds?
For sure, even UP can schedule while holding a mutex.
> It would be neater to add a new anon_vma_is_locked().
I'd agree if there was a user outside of rmap.c, but seeing as rmap.c is
and must be aware of the whole anon_vma->root thing I don't much see the
point in extra wrappery.
> This code is too tricksy to deserve life :(
I'd mostly agree with you there, but there was a strong desire to keep
page_lock_anon_vma() a single atomic. I'll see if I can actually measure
any difference using aim7 or so, which I think is the favorite anon_vma
stress tool.
> > @@ -371,20 +394,75 @@ struct anon_vma *page_get_anon_vma(struc
> > return anon_vma;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Similar to page_get_anon_vma() except it locks the anon_vma.
> > + *
> > + * Its a little more complex as it tries to keep the fast path to a single
> > + * atomic op -- the trylock. If we fail the trylock, we fall back to getting a
> > + * reference like with page_get_anon_vma() and then block on the mutex.
> > + */
> > struct anon_vma *page_lock_anon_vma(struct page *page)
> > {
> > - struct anon_vma *anon_vma = page_get_anon_vma(page);
> > + struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> > + unsigned long anon_mapping;
> >
> > - if (anon_vma)
> > - anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + anon_mapping = (unsigned long) ACCESS_ONCE(page->mapping);
> > + if ((anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS) != PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
> > + goto out;
>
> Why? Needs a comment.
Uhm, why we're testing to see if there is an anon_vma at all? Or why we
need that ACCESS_ONCE()?
> > + if (!page_mapped(page))
> > + goto out;
>
> Why? How can this come about? Needs a comment.
Well, the existing comment says to look at page_get_anon_vma() and the
comment there does explain how all this is racy wrt page_remove_rmap().
Do you want more comments?
> > +
> > + anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> > + if (mutex_trylock(&anon_vma->root->mutex)) {
>
> anon_vma_trylock()?
>
> Or just remove all the wrapper functions and open-code all the locking.
> These tricks all seem pretty tied-up with the mutex implementation
> anyway.
Well, we cannot remove all the wrappers, anon_vma_{un,}lock() are used
outside of rmap.c and we don't want to expose the implementation of the
anon_vma locking outside of here, but like said, inside rmap.c I don't
see much reason to introduce new wrappers.
And yes, all of this is needed because of the anon_vma->lock mutex
conversion since, in general, we cannot schedule under rcu_read_lock and
therefore have to play these tricks with the reference count to bridge
the gap between rcu_read_unlock() and acquiring the lock.
> > + /*
> > + * If we observe a !0 refcount, then holding the lock ensures
> > + * the anon_vma will not go away, see __put_anon_vma().
> > + */
> > + if (!atomic_read(&anon_vma->refcount)) {
> > + anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + }
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* trylock failed, we got to sleep */
> > + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&anon_vma->refcount)) {
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> >
> > + if (!page_mapped(page)) {
> > + put_anon_vma(anon_vma);
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
>
> Also quite opaque, needs decent commentary.
>
> I'd have expected this test to occur after the lock was acquired.
Right, so I think we could drop that test from both here and
page_get_anon_vma() and nothing would break, its simply avoiding some
work in case we do detect the race with page_remove_rmap().
So yes, I think I'll move it down because that'll widen the scope of
this optimization.
> > + /* we pinned the anon_vma, its safe to sleep */
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > + anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
> > +
> > + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->refcount)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Oops, we held the last refcount, release the lock
> > + * and bail -- can't simply use put_anon_vma() because
> > + * we'll deadlock on the anon_vma_lock() recursion.
> > + */
> > + anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> > + __put_anon_vma(anon_vma);
> > + anon_vma = NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return anon_vma;
> > +
> > +out:
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > return anon_vma;
> > }
> >
> > void page_unlock_anon_vma(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> > {
> > anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> > - put_anon_vma(anon_vma);
> > }
>
> Geeze, I hope this patch is worth it :( :(
There is a reason this is the last patch in the series ;-)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href