Hi Kirill,
On 4/28/2023 10:02 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:28:07PM +0800, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>> Hi Kirill,
>>
>> On 4/25/2023 8:38 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 04:46:26PM +0800, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>>>> free_transhuge_page() acquires split queue lock then check
>>>> whether the THP was added to deferred list or not.
>>>>
>>>> It's safe to check whether the THP is in deferred list or not.
>>>> When code hit free_transhuge_page(), there is no one tries
>>>> to update the folio's _deferred_list.
>>>>
>>>> If folio is not in deferred_list, it's safe to check without
>>>> acquiring lock.
>>>>
>>>> If folio is in deferred_list, the other node in deferred_list
>>>> adding/deleteing doesn't impact the return value of
>>>> list_epmty(@folio->_deferred_list).
>>>
>>> Typo.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Running page_fault1 of will-it-scale + order 2 folio for anonymous
>>>> mapping with 96 processes on an Ice Lake 48C/96T test box, we could
>>>> see the 61% split_queue_lock contention:
>>>> - 71.28% 0.35% page_fault1_pro [kernel.kallsyms] [k]
>>>> release_pages
>>>> - 70.93% release_pages
>>>> - 61.42% free_transhuge_page
>>>> + 60.77% _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
>>>>
>>>> With this patch applied, the split_queue_lock contention is less
>>>> than 1%.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Tested-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> index 032fb0ef9cd1..c620f1f12247 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> @@ -2799,12 +2799,25 @@ void free_transhuge_page(struct page *page)
>>>> struct deferred_split *ds_queue = get_deferred_split_queue(folio);
>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>>
>>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
>>>> - if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list)) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * At this point, there is no one trying to queue the folio
>>>> + * to deferred_list. folio->_deferred_list is not possible
>>>> + * being updated.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * If folio is already added to deferred_list, add/delete to/from
>>>> + * deferred_list will not impact list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list).
>>>> + * It's safe to check list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list) without
>>>> + * acquiring the lock.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * If folio is not in deferred_list, it's safe to check without
>>>> + * acquiring the lock.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (data_race(!list_empty(&folio->_deferred_list))) {
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ds_queue->split_queue_lock, flags);
>>>
>>> Recheck under lock?
>> In function deferred_split_scan(), there is following code block:
>> if (folio_try_get(folio)) {
>> list_move(&folio->_deferred_list, &list);
>> } else {
>> /* We lost race with folio_put() */
>> list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
>> ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
>> }
>>
>> I am wondering what kind of "lost race with folio_put()" can be.
>>
>> My understanding is that it's not necessary to handle this case here
>> because free_transhuge_page() will handle it once folio get zero ref.
>> But I must miss something here. Thanks.
>
> free_transhuge_page() got when refcount is already zero. Both
> deferred_split_scan() and free_transhuge_page() can see the page with zero
> refcount. The check makes deferred_split_scan() to leave the page to the
> free_transhuge_page().
>
If deferred_split_scan() leaves the page to free_transhuge_page(), is it
necessary to do
list_del_init(&folio->_deferred_list);
ds_queue->split_queue_len--;
Can these two line be left to free_transhuge_page() either? Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
