linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: Take read_lock on i

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ae9384e6-ac8d-8dd3-54c4-34d368c9515c@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:31:56 -0800
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: Take read_lock on i_mmap for PMD sharing

On 11/7/19 11:06 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> A customer with large SMP systems (up to 16 sockets) with application
> that uses large amount of static hugepages (~500-1500GB) are experiencing
> random multisecond delays. These delays was caused by the long time it
> took to scan the VMA interval tree with mmap_sem held.
> 
> The sharing of huge PMD does not require changes to the i_mmap at all.
> As a result, we can just take the read lock and let other threads
> searching for the right VMA to share in parallel. Once the right
> VMA is found, either the PMD lock (2M huge page for x86-64) or the
> mm->page_table_lock will be acquired to perform the actual PMD sharing.
> 
> Lock contention, if present, will happen in the spinlock. That is much
> better than contention in the rwsem where the time needed to scan the
> the interval tree is indeterminate.
> 
> With this patch applied, the customer is seeing significant improvements
> over the unpatched kernel.

Thanks for getting this tested in the customers environment!

> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>

Just a small typo in the comment, otherwise.

Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>

> ---
>  mm/hugetlb.c | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index b45a95363a84..087e7ff00137 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4842,7 +4842,11 @@ pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
>  	if (!vma_shareable(vma, addr))
>  		return (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
>  
> -	i_mmap_lock_write(mapping);
> +	/*
> +	 * PMD sharing does not require changes to i_mmap. So a read lock
> +	 * is enuogh.

s/enuogh/enough/

> +	 */
> +	i_mmap_lock_read(mapping);
>  	vma_interval_tree_foreach(svma, &mapping->i_mmap, idx, idx) {
>  		if (svma == vma)
>  			continue;
> @@ -4872,7 +4876,7 @@ pte_t *huge_pmd_share(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pud_t *pud)
>  	spin_unlock(ptl);
>  out:
>  	pte = (pte_t *)pmd_alloc(mm, pud, addr);
> -	i_mmap_unlock_write(mapping);
> +	i_mmap_unlock_read(mapping);
>  	return pte;
>  }
>  
> 

-- 
Mike Kravetz