From: Patrick Kelsey <pat.kelsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[ Upstream commit 9fe8fec5e43d5a80f43cbf61aaada1b047a1eb61 ]
hfi1_mmu_rb_remove_unless_exact() did not move mmu_rb_node objects in
mmu_rb_handler->lru_list after getting a cache hit on an mmu_rb_node.
As a result, hfi1_mmu_rb_evict() was not guaranteed to evict truly
least-recently used nodes.
This could be a performance issue for an application when that
application:
- Uses some long-lived buffers frequently.
- Uses a large number of buffers once.
- Hits the mmu_rb_handler cache size or pinned-page limits, forcing
mmu_rb_handler cache entries to be evicted.
In this case, the one-time use buffers cause the long-lived buffer
entries to eventually filter to the end of the LRU list where
hfi1_mmu_rb_evict() will consider evicting a frequently-used long-lived
entry instead of evicting one of the one-time use entries.
Fix this by inserting new mmu_rb_node at the tail of
mmu_rb_handler->lru_list and move mmu_rb_ndoe to the tail of
mmu_rb_handler->lru_list when the mmu_rb_node is a hit in
hfi1_mmu_rb_remove_unless_exact(). Change hfi1_mmu_rb_evict() to evict
from the head of mmu_rb_handler->lru_list instead of the tail.
Fixes: 0636e9ab8355 ("IB/hfi1: Add cache evict LRU list")
Signed-off-by: Brendan Cunningham <bcunningham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Patrick Kelsey <pat.kelsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/168088635931.3027109.10423156330761536044.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mmu_rb.c | 13 ++++++-------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mmu_rb.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mmu_rb.c
index e1c7996c018ef..513a297b4ff0e 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mmu_rb.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mmu_rb.c
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ int hfi1_mmu_rb_insert(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler,
goto unlock;
}
__mmu_int_rb_insert(mnode, &handler->root);
- list_add(&mnode->list, &handler->lru_list);
+ list_add_tail(&mnode->list, &handler->lru_list);
ret = handler->ops->insert(handler->ops_arg, mnode);
if (ret) {
@@ -222,8 +222,10 @@ bool hfi1_mmu_rb_remove_unless_exact(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler,
spin_lock_irqsave(&handler->lock, flags);
node = __mmu_rb_search(handler, addr, len);
if (node) {
- if (node->addr == addr && node->len == len)
+ if (node->addr == addr && node->len == len) {
+ list_move_tail(&node->list, &handler->lru_list);
goto unlock;
+ }
__mmu_int_rb_remove(node, &handler->root);
list_del(&node->list); /* remove from LRU list */
ret = true;
@@ -244,8 +246,7 @@ void hfi1_mmu_rb_evict(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler, void *evict_arg)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&del_list);
spin_lock_irqsave(&handler->lock, flags);
- list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(rbnode, ptr, &handler->lru_list,
- list) {
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(rbnode, ptr, &handler->lru_list, list) {
if (handler->ops->evict(handler->ops_arg, rbnode, evict_arg,
&stop)) {
__mmu_int_rb_remove(rbnode, &handler->root);
@@ -257,9 +258,7 @@ void hfi1_mmu_rb_evict(struct mmu_rb_handler *handler, void *evict_arg)
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&handler->lock, flags);
- while (!list_empty(&del_list)) {
- rbnode = list_first_entry(&del_list, struct mmu_rb_node, list);
- list_del(&rbnode->list);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(rbnode, ptr, &del_list, list) {
handler->ops->remove(handler->ops_arg, rbnode);
}
}
--
2.39.2
