[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130916104205.5605CE0090@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:42:05 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kirill posted split_ptl patchset for thp today, so in this version
> I post only hugetlbfs part. I added Kconfig variables in following
> Kirill's patches (although without CONFIG_SPLIT_*_PTLOCK_CPUS.)
>
> This patch changes many lines, but all are in hugetlbfs specific code,
> so I think we can apply this independent of thp patches.
> -----
> From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:12:30 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH v4] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
>
> Currently all of page table handling by hugetlbfs code are done under
> mm->page_table_lock. So when a process have many threads and they heavily
> access to the memory, lock contention happens and impacts the performance.
>
> This patch makes hugepage support split page table lock so that we use
> page->ptl of the leaf node of page table tree which is pte for normal pages
> but can be pmd and/or pud for hugepages of some architectures.
>
> ChangeLog v4:
> - introduce arch dependent macro ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCK
> (only defined for x86 for now)
> - rename USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB to USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS
>
> ChangeLog v3:
> - disable split ptl for ppc with USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB.
> - remove replacement in some architecture dependent code. This is justified
> because an allocation of pgd/pud/pmd/pte entry can race with other
> allocation, not with read/write access, so we can use different locks.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/106292/focus=106458
>
> ChangeLog v2:
> - add split ptl on other archs missed in v1
> - drop changes on arch/{powerpc,tile}/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 +++
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 20 +++++++++++
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 2 ++
> mm/Kconfig | 3 ++
> mm/hugetlb.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +--
> mm/migrate.c | 4 +--
> mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 6a5cf6a..5b83d14 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -1884,6 +1884,10 @@ config ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK
> def_bool y
> depends on X86_64 || X86_PAE
>
> +config ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCK
> + def_bool y
> + depends on X86_64 || X86_PAE
> +
> menu "Power management and ACPI options"
>
> config ARCH_HIBERNATION_HEADER
> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index 0393270..2cdac68 100644
> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,24 @@ extern const unsigned long hugetlb_zero, hugetlb_infinity;
> extern int sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group;
> extern struct list_head huge_boot_pages;
>
> +#if USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({__pte_lockptr(virt_to_page(ptep)); })
> +#else /* !USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS */
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({&(mm)->page_table_lock; })
> +#endif /* USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS */
> +
> +#define huge_pte_offset_lock(mm, address, ptlp) \
> +({ \
> + pte_t *__pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, address); \
> + spinlock_t *__ptl = NULL; \
> + if (__pte) { \
> + __ptl = huge_pte_lockptr(mm, __pte); \
> + *(ptlp) = __ptl; \
> + spin_lock(__ptl); \
> + } \
> + __pte; \
> +})
> +
[ Disclaimer: I don't know much about hugetlb. ]
I don't think it's correct. Few points:
- Hugetlb supports multiple page sizes: on x86_64 2M (PMD) and 1G (PUD).
My patchset only implements it for PMD. We don't even initialize
spinlock in struct page for PUD.
- If we enable split PMD lock we should use it *globally*. With you patch
we can end up with different locks used by hugetlb and rest of kernel
to protect the same PMD table if USE_SPLIT_HUGETLB_PTLOCKS !=
USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS. It's just broken.
What we should really do is take split pmd lock (using pmd_lock*) if we
try to protect PMD level and fallback to mm->page_table_lock if we want to
protect upper levels.
> /* arch callbacks */
>
> pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm,
> @@ -164,6 +182,8 @@ static inline void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> BUG();
> }
>
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) 0
> +
NULL?
> #endif /* !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
>
> #define HUGETLB_ANON_FILE "anon_hugepage"
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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