Some pedantic grammar/spelling stuff:-
(I know it can be a little annoying to get grammatical suggestions so I do hope
that it isn't too irritating!)
For the Subject line:-
'mm: vmalloc: Avoid of calling __find_vmap_area() twise in __vunmap()' ->
'mm: vmalloc: Avoid calling __find_vmap_area() twice in __vunmap()'
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 06:44:52PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> Currently __vunmap() path calls __find_vmap_area() two times. One on
> entry to check that area exists, second time inside remove_vm_area()
> function that also performs a new search of VA.
Perhaps slightly tweak to:-
"Currently the __vunmap() path calls __find_vmap_area() twice. Once on entry
to check that the area exists, then inside the remove_vm_area() function
which also performs a new search for the VA."
>
> In order to improvie it from a performance point of view we split
> remove_vm_area() into two new parts:
> - find_unlink_vmap_area() that does a search and unlink from tree;
> - __remove_vm_area() that does a removing but without searching.
'that does a removing but without searching' reads better I think as
'that removes without searching'.
>
> In this case there is no any functional change for remove_vm_area()
> whereas vm_remove_mappings(), where a second search happens, switches
> to the __remove_vm_area() variant where already detached VA is passed
> as a parameter, so there is no need to find it again.
>
'where already detached VA' -> 'where the already detached VA' as a minor nit
here!
> Performance wise, i use test_vmalloc.sh with 32 threads doing alloc
> free on a 64-CPUs-x86_64-box:
>
> perf without this patch:
> - 31.41% 0.50% vmalloc_test/10 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __vunmap
> - 30.92% __vunmap
> - 17.67% _raw_spin_lock
> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> - 12.33% remove_vm_area
> - 11.79% free_vmap_area_noflush
> - 11.18% _raw_spin_lock
> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 0.76% free_unref_page
>
> perf with this patch:
> - 11.35% 0.13% vmalloc_test/14 [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __vunmap
> - 11.23% __vunmap
> - 8.28% find_unlink_vmap_area
> - 7.95% _raw_spin_lock
> 7.44% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> - 1.93% free_vmap_area_noflush
> - 0.56% _raw_spin_lock
> 0.53% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> 0.60% __vunmap_range_noflush
>
> __vunmap() consumes around ~20% less CPU cycles on this test.
Very nice, amazing work!
>
> Reported-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mm/vmalloc.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 9e30f0b39203..28030d2441f1 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1825,9 +1825,11 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va)
> unsigned long va_start = va->va_start;
> unsigned long nr_lazy;
>
> - spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> - unlink_va(va, &vmap_area_root);
> - spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> + if (!list_empty(&va->list)) {
> + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> + unlink_va(va, &vmap_area_root);
> + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> + }
Do we want to do the same in free_vmap_area()?
>
> nr_lazy = atomic_long_add_return((va->va_end - va->va_start) >>
> PAGE_SHIFT, &vmap_lazy_nr);
> @@ -1871,6 +1873,19 @@ struct vmap_area *find_vmap_area(unsigned long addr)
> return va;
> }
>
> +static struct vmap_area *find_unlink_vmap_area(unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + struct vmap_area *va;
> +
> + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> + va = __find_vmap_area(addr, &vmap_area_root);
> + if (va)
> + unlink_va(va, &vmap_area_root);
> + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> +
> + return va;
> +}
> +
> /*** Per cpu kva allocator ***/
>
> /*
> @@ -2591,6 +2606,20 @@ struct vm_struct *find_vm_area(const void *addr)
> return va->vm;
> }
>
> +static struct vm_struct *__remove_vm_area(struct vmap_area *va)
> +{
> + struct vm_struct *vm;
> +
> + if (!va || !va->vm)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + vm = va->vm;
> + kasan_free_module_shadow(vm);
> + free_unmap_vmap_area(va);
> +
> + return vm;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * remove_vm_area - find and remove a continuous kernel virtual area
> * @addr: base address
> @@ -2607,22 +2636,8 @@ struct vm_struct *remove_vm_area(const void *addr)
>
> might_sleep();
>
> - spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock);
> - va = __find_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr, &vmap_area_root);
> - if (va && va->vm) {
> - struct vm_struct *vm = va->vm;
> -
> - va->vm = NULL;
> - spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> -
> - kasan_free_module_shadow(vm);
> - free_unmap_vmap_area(va);
> -
> - return vm;
> - }
> -
> - spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock);
> - return NULL;
> + va = find_unlink_vmap_area((unsigned long) addr);
> + return __remove_vm_area(va);
> }
Really nice separation of concerns and cleanup.
>
> static inline void set_area_direct_map(const struct vm_struct *area,
> @@ -2637,15 +2652,16 @@ static inline void set_area_direct_map(const struct vm_struct *area,
> }
>
> /* Handle removing and resetting vm mappings related to the vm_struct. */
> -static void vm_remove_mappings(struct vm_struct *area, int deallocate_pages)
> +static void vm_remove_mappings(struct vmap_area *va, int deallocate_pages)
Perhaps rename this to va_remove_mappings() or vmap_area_remove_mappings() since
it is now explicitly accepting a vmap_area rather than vm_struct?
> {
> + struct vm_struct *area = va->vm;
> unsigned long start = ULONG_MAX, end = 0;
> unsigned int page_order = vm_area_page_order(area);
> int flush_reset = area->flags & VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS;
> int flush_dmap = 0;
> int i;
>
> - remove_vm_area(area->addr);
> + __remove_vm_area(va);
>
> /* If this is not VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS memory, no need for the below. */
> if (!flush_reset)
> @@ -2690,6 +2706,7 @@ static void vm_remove_mappings(struct vm_struct *area, int deallocate_pages)
> static void __vunmap(const void *addr, int deallocate_pages)
> {
> struct vm_struct *area;
Feels like it's getting a bit confusing with 'va' representing vmap_area and
'area' which represents... vm_struct (this file has a bunch of naming
inconsistencies like this actually), perhaps rename this to 'vm'?
> + struct vmap_area *va;
>
> if (!addr)
> return;
> @@ -2698,19 +2715,20 @@ static void __vunmap(const void *addr, int deallocate_pages)
> addr))
> return;
>
> - area = find_vm_area(addr);
> - if (unlikely(!area)) {
> + va = find_unlink_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr);
> + if (unlikely(!va)) {
> WARN(1, KERN_ERR "Trying to vfree() nonexistent vm area (%p)\n",
> addr);
> return;
> }
>
> + area = va->vm;
> debug_check_no_locks_freed(area->addr, get_vm_area_size(area));
> debug_check_no_obj_freed(area->addr, get_vm_area_size(area));
>
> kasan_poison_vmalloc(area->addr, get_vm_area_size(area));
>
> - vm_remove_mappings(area, deallocate_pages);
> + vm_remove_mappings(va, deallocate_pages);
>
> if (deallocate_pages) {
> int i;
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Other than some pendatic points about grammar/naming this looks really good!
