[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253180411.8497.1.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:40:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"lee.schermerhorn@...com" <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: aim7 scalability issue on 4 socket machine
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 17:31 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> Aim7 result is bad on my new Nehalem machines (4*8*2 logical cpu). Perf counter
> shows spinlock consumes 70% cpu time on the machine. Lock_stat shows
> anon_vma->lock causes most of the spinlock contention. Function tracer shows
> below call chain creates the spinlock.
>
> do_brk => vma_merge =>vma_adjust
>
> Aim7 consists of lots of subtests. One test is to fork lots of processes and
> every process calls sbrk for 1000 times to grow/shrink the heap. All the vma of
> the heap of all sub-processes point to the same anon_vma and use the same
> anon_vma->lock. When sbrk is called, kernel calls do_brk => vma_merge =>vma_adjust
> and lock anon_vma->lock to create spinlock contentions.
>
> There is a comment section in front of spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock. It says
> anon_vma lock can be optimized when just changing vma->vm_end. As a matter
> of fact, anon_vma->lock is used to protect anon_vma->list when an entry is
> deleted/inserted or the list is accessed. There is no such deletion/insertion
> if only vma->end is changed in function vma_adjust.
>
> Below patch fixes it.
>
> Test results with kernel 2.6.31-rc8. The improvement on the machine is about 150%.
Did you see Lee's patch?:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/9/290
Added Lee and Hugh to CC, retained the below patch for them.
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
>
> ---
>
> --- linux-2.6.31-rc8/mm/mmap.c 2009-09-03 10:03:57.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6.31-rc8_aim7/mm/mmap.c 2009-09-17 19:11:20.000000000 +0800
> @@ -512,6 +512,7 @@ void vma_adjust(struct vm_area_struct *v
> struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> long adjust_next = 0;
> int remove_next = 0;
> + int anon_vma_use_lock;
>
> if (next && !insert) {
> if (end >= next->vm_end) {
> @@ -568,22 +569,32 @@ again: remove_next = 1 + (end > next->
> }
> }
>
> - /*
> - * When changing only vma->vm_end, we don't really need
> - * anon_vma lock: but is that case worth optimizing out?
> - */
> if (vma->anon_vma)
> anon_vma = vma->anon_vma;
> + anon_vma_use_lock = 0;
> if (anon_vma) {
> - spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> /*
> - * Easily overlooked: when mprotect shifts the boundary,
> - * make sure the expanding vma has anon_vma set if the
> - * shrinking vma had, to cover any anon pages imported.
> + * When changing only vma->vm_end, we don't really need
> + * anon_vma lock.
> + * ana_vma->lock is to protect the access to the list
> + * started from anon_vma->head. If we don't remove or
> + * insert a vma to the list, and also don't access
> + * the list, we don't need ana_vma->lock.
> */
> - if (importer && !importer->anon_vma) {
> - importer->anon_vma = anon_vma;
> - __anon_vma_link(importer);
> + if (remove_next ||
> + insert ||
> + (importer && !importer->anon_vma)) {
> + anon_vma_use_lock = 1;
> + spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> + /*
> + * Easily overlooked: when mprotect shifts the boundary,
> + * make sure the expanding vma has anon_vma set if the
> + * shrinking vma had, to cover any anon pages imported.
> + */
> + if (importer && !importer->anon_vma) {
> + importer->anon_vma = anon_vma;
> + __anon_vma_link(importer);
> + }
> }
> }
>
> @@ -628,7 +639,7 @@ again: remove_next = 1 + (end > next->
> __insert_vm_struct(mm, insert);
> }
>
> - if (anon_vma)
> + if (anon_vma_use_lock)
> spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> if (mapping)
> spin_unlock(&mapping->i_mmap_lock);
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists