linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] drivers/base/memory.c: cache blocks in radix tree to accelerate lookup

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <fe92b4f0-0cd7-c705-1ed9-239175689051@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 17:17:54 +0100
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        nathanl@...ux.ibm.com, ricklind@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] drivers/base/memory.c: cache blocks in radix tree to
 accelerate lookup

On 16.01.20 16:28, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 16.01.20 16:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 15-01-20 20:09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 09.01.20 22:25, Scott Cheloha wrote:
>>>> Searching for a particular memory block by id is an O(n) operation
>>>> because each memory block's underlying device is kept in an unsorted
>>>> linked list on the subsystem bus.
>>>>
>>>> We can cut the lookup cost to O(log n) if we cache the memory blocks in
>>>> a radix tree.  With a radix tree cache in place both memory subsystem
>>>> initialization and memory hotplug run palpably faster on systems with a
>>>> large number of memory blocks.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...ux.ibm.com>
>>>> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>>>
>>> Soooo,
>>>
>>> I just learned that radix trees are nowadays only a wrapper for xarray
>>> (for quite a while already!), and that the xarray interface shall be
>>> used in new code.
>>
>> Good point. I somehow didn't realize this would add more work for a
>> later code refactoring. The mapping should be pretty straightforward.
> 
> Yes it is. @Scott, care to send a fixup that does the mapping?

Never having used an xarray, I gave it a quick shot. The following
should do the trick:


diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index c6d288fad493..c75dec35de43 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 #include <linux/memory.h>
 #include <linux/memory_hotplug.h>
 #include <linux/mm.h>
-#include <linux/radix-tree.h>
+#include <linux/xarray.h>
 #include <linux/stat.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 
@@ -58,11 +58,11 @@ static struct bus_type memory_subsys = {
 };
 
 /*
- * Memory blocks are cached in a local radix tree to avoid
+ * Memory blocks are cached in a local xarray to avoid
  * a costly linear search for the corresponding device on
  * the subsystem bus.
  */
-static RADIX_TREE(memory_blocks, GFP_KERNEL);
+static DEFINE_XARRAY(memory_blocks);
 
 static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(memory_chain);
 
@@ -566,7 +566,7 @@ static struct memory_block *find_memory_block_by_id(unsigned long block_id)
 {
        struct memory_block *mem;
 
-       mem = radix_tree_lookup(&memory_blocks, block_id);
+       mem = xa_load(&memory_blocks, block_id);
        if (mem)
                get_device(&mem->dev);
        return mem;
@@ -621,7 +621,8 @@ int register_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
                put_device(&memory->dev);
                return ret;
        }
-       ret = radix_tree_insert(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id, memory);
+       ret = xa_err(xa_store(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id, memory,
+                             GFP_KERNEL));
        if (ret) {
                put_device(&memory->dev);
                device_unregister(&memory->dev);
@@ -683,7 +684,7 @@ static void unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys))
                return;
 
-       WARN_ON(radix_tree_delete(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id) == NULL);
+       WARN_ON(xa_erase(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id) == NULL);
 
        /* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
        put_device(&memory->dev);


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb