On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 03:17:49PM -0700, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
>> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
>> index 8ff73d8..44a0f81 100644
>> --- a/mm/swap.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,19 @@ static void put_compound_page(struct page *page)
>> if (likely(page != page_head &&
>> get_page_unless_zero(page_head))) {
>> unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> + if (PageSlab(page_head)) {
>> + if (PageTail(page)) {
>> + /* THP can not break up slab pages, avoid
>> + * taking compound_lock(). */
>> + if (put_page_testzero(page_head))
>> + VM_BUG_ON(1);
>> +
>> + atomic_dec(&page->_mapcount);
>> + goto skip_lock_tail;
>> + } else
>> + goto skip_lock;
>> + }
>
> Some commentary on the fact slab prefers not using atomic ops on the
> page->flags could help here.
ok.
>
>> /*
>> * page_head wasn't a dangling pointer but it
>> * may not be a head page anymore by the time
>> @@ -93,6 +106,7 @@ static void put_compound_page(struct page *page)
>> /* __split_huge_page_refcount run before us */
>> compound_unlock_irqrestore(page_head, flags);
>> VM_BUG_ON(PageHead(page_head));
>
> Hmmm hmmm while reviewing this one, I've been thinking maybe the head
> page after the hugepage split, could have been freed and reallocated
> as order 1 or 2, and legitimately become an head page again.
>
> The whole point of the bug-on is that it cannot be reallocated as a
> THP beause the tail is still there and it's not free yet, but it
> doesn't take into account the head page could be allocated as a
> compound page of a smaller size and maybe the tail is the last subpage
> of the thp.
>
> So there's the risk of a false positive, in an extremely unlikely case
> (the fact slab goes in unmovable pageblocks and thp goes in movable
> further decreases the probability). All production kernels runs with
> VM_BUG_ON disabled so it's a very small concern, but maybe we should
> delete it. It has never triggered, just code reivew. Do you agree?
>
right, I will delete it.
>> + skip_lock:
>> if (put_page_testzero(page_head))
>> __put_single_page(page_head);
>> out_put_single:
>> @@ -115,6 +129,8 @@ static void put_compound_page(struct page *page)
>> VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&page_head->_count) <= 0);
>> VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0);
>> compound_unlock_irqrestore(page_head, flags);
>> +
>> + skip_lock_tail:
>> if (put_page_testzero(page_head)) {
>> if (PageHead(page_head))
>> __put_compound_page(page_head);
>> @@ -162,6 +178,15 @@ bool __get_page_tail(struct page *page)
>> struct page *page_head = compound_trans_head(page);
>>
>> if (likely(page != page_head && get_page_unless_zero(page_head))) {
>> +
>> + if (PageSlab(page_head)) {
>> + if (likely(PageTail(page))) {
>> + __get_page_tail_foll(page, false);
>> + return true;
>> + } else
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> +
>
> A comment here too would be nice.
>
>> /*
>> * page_head wasn't a dangling pointer but it
>> * may not be a head page anymore by the time
>> @@ -175,6 +200,8 @@ bool __get_page_tail(struct page *page)
>> got = true;
>> }
>> compound_unlock_irqrestore(page_head, flags);
>> +
>> + out:
>> if (unlikely(!got))
>> put_page(page_head);
>
> out could go in the line below. Assuming we don't want to be cleaner
> and use put_page above instead of goto, that would also drop a branch
> probably (the goto place is such a slow path). I'm fine either ways.
>
> It's not the cleanest of the patches but it's clearly a performance
> tweak.
>
ok, I will post revised patch.
> Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks,
> Andrea
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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