On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:15:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:54:25 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > kernel test robot reported the regression of fio.write_iops[1] > > with [2]. > > > > Since lru_add_drain is called frequently, invalidate bh_lrus > > there could increase bh_lrus cache miss ratio, which needs > > more IO in the end. > > > > This patch moves the bh_lrus invalidation from the hot path( > > e.g., zap_page_range, pagevec_release) to cold path(i.e., > > lru_add_drain_all, lru_cache_disable). > > This code is starting to hurt my brain. > > What are the locking/context rules for invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu()? > AFAICT it offers no protection against two CPUs concurrently running > __invalidate_bh_lrus() against the same bh_lru. The lru_add_drain_per_cpu will run on per-cpu since it's per-cpu work and invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu will run under bh_lru_lock so I couldn't imagine that race can happen. > > So when CONFIG_SMP=y, invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu() must always and only be > run on the cpu which owns the bh_lru. In which case why does it have > the `cpu' arg? I just wanted to express both lru_add_drain_cpu and invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu in lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain run in the same cpu but look like a bad idea since it makes people confused. Let me remove the cpu argument from invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu. > > Your new lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain() follows these rules by calling > invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu() from a per-cpu worker or when CONFIG_SMP=n. > > I think. It's all as clear as mud and undocumented. Could you please > take a look at this? Comment the locking/context rules thoroughly and > check that they are being followed? Not forgetting cpu hotplug... See if > there's a way of simplifying/clarifying the code? > > The fact that swap.c has those #ifdef CONFIG_SMPs in there is a hint > that we're doing something wrong (or poorly) in there. Perhaps that's > unavoidable because of all the fancy footwork in __lru_add_drain_all(). > Hopefully, this is better. >From 8d58e7ade3ed6c080995dec1395b1e130b3d16b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:19:17 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] mm: fs: invalidate bh_lrus for only cold path kernel test robot reported the regression of fio.write_iops[1] with [2]. Since lru_add_drain is called frequently, invalidate bh_lrus there could increase bh_lrus cache miss ratio, which needs more IO in the end. This patch moves the bh_lrus invalidation from the hot path( e.g., zap_page_range, pagevec_release) to cold path(i.e., lru_add_drain_all, lru_cache_disable). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210520083144.GD14190@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/ [2] 8cc621d2f45d, mm: fs: invalidate BH LRU during page migration Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/buffer.c | 8 ++++++-- include/linux/buffer_head.h | 4 ++-- mm/swap.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c index 673cfbef9eec..bdaffed39030 100644 --- a/fs/buffer.c +++ b/fs/buffer.c @@ -1487,12 +1487,16 @@ void invalidate_bh_lrus(void) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(invalidate_bh_lrus); -void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu) +/* + * It's called from workqueue context so we need a bh_lru_lock to close + * the race with preemption/irq. + */ +void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void) { struct bh_lru *b; bh_lru_lock(); - b = per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus, cpu); + b = this_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus); __invalidate_bh_lrus(b); bh_lru_unlock(); } diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h index e7e99da31349..b04d34bab124 100644 --- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h +++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ void __breadahead_gfp(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned int size, struct buffer_head *__bread_gfp(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned size, gfp_t gfp); void invalidate_bh_lrus(void); -void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu); +void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void); bool has_bh_in_lru(int cpu, void *dummy); struct buffer_head *alloc_buffer_head(gfp_t gfp_flags); void free_buffer_head(struct buffer_head * bh); @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static inline int inode_has_buffers(struct inode *inode) { return 0; } static inline void invalidate_inode_buffers(struct inode *inode) {} static inline int remove_inode_buffers(struct inode *inode) { return 1; } static inline int sync_mapping_buffers(struct address_space *mapping) { return 0; } -static inline void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu) {} +static inline void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void) {} static inline bool has_bh_in_lru(int cpu, void *dummy) { return 0; } #define buffer_heads_over_limit 0 diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c index 1958d5feb148..4d9ec3c3c5a9 100644 --- a/mm/swap.c +++ b/mm/swap.c @@ -642,7 +642,6 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu) pagevec_lru_move_fn(pvec, lru_lazyfree_fn); activate_page_drain(cpu); - invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu); } /** @@ -725,6 +724,20 @@ void lru_add_drain(void) local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock); } +/* + * It's called from per-cpu workqueue context in SMP case so + * lru_add_drain_cpu and invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu should run on + * the same cpu. It shouldn't be a problem in !SMP case since + * the core is only one and the locks will disable preemption. + */ +static void lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain(void) +{ + local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock); + lru_add_drain_cpu(smp_processor_id()); + local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock); + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(); +} + void lru_add_drain_cpu_zone(struct zone *zone) { local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock); @@ -739,7 +752,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, lru_add_drain_work); static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(struct work_struct *dummy) { - lru_add_drain(); + lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain(); } /* @@ -880,7 +893,7 @@ void lru_cache_disable(void) */ __lru_add_drain_all(true); #else - lru_add_drain(); + lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain(); #endif } -- 2.32.0.rc0.204.g9fa02ecfa5-goog
