[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522153617.GI23991@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:36:17 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-FSDevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: filemap: Avoid unnecessary barriers and waitqueue
lookups in unlock_page fastpath v7
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:04:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:40:45PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > > +static bool __wake_up_common(wait_queue_head_t *q, unsigned int mode,
> > > int nr_exclusive, int wake_flags, void *key)
> > > {
> > > wait_queue_t *curr, *next;
> > > + bool woke = false;
> > >
> > > list_for_each_entry_safe(curr, next, &q->task_list, task_list) {
> > > unsigned flags = curr->flags;
> > >
> > > + if (curr->func(curr, mode, wake_flags, key)) {
> > > + woke = true;
> > > + if ((flags & WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE) && !--nr_exclusive)
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + return woke;
> >
> > Ok, thinking about this more I'm less sure.
> >
> > There are cases where the curr->func returns false even though there is a
> > task that needs to run -- task was already running or preparing to run. We
> > potentially end up clearing PG_waiters while there are still tasks on the
> > waitqueue. As __finish_wait checks if the waitqueue is empty and the last
> > waiter clears the bit I think there is nothing to gain by trying to do the
> > same job in __wake_up_page_bit.
>
> Hmm, I think you're right, we need the test result from
> wake_bit_function(), unpolluted by the ttwu return value.
Which would be a bit too special cased and not a clear win. I at least
added a comment to explain what is going on here.
/*
* Unlike __wake_up_bit it is necessary to check waitqueue_active
* under the wqh->lock to avoid races with parallel additions that
* could result in lost wakeups.
*/
spin_lock_irqsave(&wqh->lock, flags);
if (waitqueue_active(wqh)) {
/*
* Try waking a task on the queue. Responsibility for clearing
* the PG_waiters bit is left to the last waiter on the
* waitqueue as PageWaiters is called outside wqh->lock and
* we cannot miss wakeups. Due to hashqueue collisions, there
* may be colliding pages that still have PG_waiters set but
* the impact means there will be at least one unnecessary
* lookup of the page waitqueue on the next unlock_page or
* end of writeback.
*/
__wake_up_common(wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, 0, &key);
} else {
/* No potential waiters, safe to clear PG_waiters */
ClearPageWaiters(page);
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wqh->lock, flags);
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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