Message-ID: <706c697c-c951-e0c3-40f8-f6e429b2226a@yandex-team.ru>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 15:22:15 +0300
From:   Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To:     "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        "Sebastian A. Siewior" <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/25] mm/swap: Don't abuse the seqcount latching API

On 20/05/2020 00.45, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> Commit eef1a429f234 ("mm/swap.c: piggyback lru_add_drain_all() calls")
> implemented an optimization mechanism to exit the to-be-started LRU
> drain operation (name it A) if another drain operation *started and
> finished* while (A) was blocked on the LRU draining mutex.
> 
> This was done through a seqcount latch, which is an abuse of its
> semantics:
> 
>    1. Seqcount latching should be used for the purpose of switching
>       between two storage places with sequence protection to allow
>       interruptible, preemptible writer sections. The optimization
>       mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with that.
> 
>    2. The used raw_write_seqcount_latch() has two smp write memory
>       barriers to always insure one consistent storage place out of the
>       two storage places available. This extra smp_wmb() is redundant for
>       the optimization use case.
> 
> Beside the API abuse, the semantics of a latch sequence counter was
> force fitted into the optimization. What was actually meant is to track
> generations of LRU draining operations, where "current lru draining
> generation = x" implies that all generations 0 < n <= x are already
> *scheduled* for draining.
> 
> Remove the conceptually-inappropriate seqcount latch usage and manually
> implement the optimization using a counter and SMP memory barriers.

Well, I thought it fits perfectly =)

Maybe it's worth to add helpers with appropriate semantics?
This is pretty common pattern.

> 
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALYGNiPSr-cxV9MX9czaVh6Wz_gzSv3H_8KPvgjBTGbJywUJpA@mail.gmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Ahmed S. Darwish <a.darwish@...utronix.de>
> ---
>   mm/swap.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index bf9a79fed62d..d6910eeed43d 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -713,10 +713,20 @@ static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(struct work_struct *dummy)
>    */
>   void lru_add_drain_all(void)
>   {
> -	static seqcount_t seqcount = SEQCNT_ZERO(seqcount);
> -	static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * lru_drain_gen - Current generation of pages that could be in vectors
> +	 *
> +	 * (A) Definition: lru_drain_gen = x implies that all generations
> +	 *     0 < n <= x are already scheduled for draining.
> +	 *
> +	 * This is an optimization for the highly-contended use case where a
> +	 * user space workload keeps constantly generating a flow of pages
> +	 * for each CPU.
> +	 */
> +	static unsigned int lru_drain_gen;
>   	static struct cpumask has_work;
> -	int cpu, seq;
> +	static DEFINE_MUTEX(lock);
> +	int cpu, this_gen;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Make sure nobody triggers this path before mm_percpu_wq is fully
> @@ -725,21 +735,48 @@ void lru_add_drain_all(void)
>   	if (WARN_ON(!mm_percpu_wq))
>   		return;
>   
> -	seq = raw_read_seqcount_latch(&seqcount);
> +	/*
> +	 * (B) Cache the LRU draining generation number
> +	 *
> +	 * smp_rmb() ensures that the counter is loaded before the mutex is
> +	 * taken. It pairs with the smp_wmb() inside the mutex critical section
> +	 * at (D).
> +	 */
> +	this_gen = READ_ONCE(lru_drain_gen);
> +	smp_rmb();
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&lock);
>   
>   	/*
> -	 * Piggyback on drain started and finished while we waited for lock:
> -	 * all pages pended at the time of our enter were drained from vectors.
> +	 * (C) Exit the draining operation if a newer generation, from another
> +	 * lru_add_drain_all(), was already scheduled for draining. Check (A).
>   	 */
> -	if (__read_seqcount_retry(&seqcount, seq))
> +	if (unlikely(this_gen != lru_drain_gen))
>   		goto done;
>   
> -	raw_write_seqcount_latch(&seqcount);
> +	/*
> +	 * (D) Increment generation number
> +	 *
> +	 * Pairs with READ_ONCE() and smp_rmb() at (B), outside of the critical
> +	 * section.
> +	 *
> +	 * This pairing must be done here, before the for_each_online_cpu loop
> +	 * below which drains the page vectors.
> +	 *
> +	 * Let x, y, and z represent some system CPU numbers, where x < y < z.
> +	 * Assume CPU #z is is in the middle of the for_each_online_cpu loop
> +	 * below and has already reached CPU #y's per-cpu data. CPU #x comes
> +	 * along, adds some pages to its per-cpu vectors, then calls
> +	 * lru_add_drain_all().
> +	 *
> +	 * If the paired smp_wmb() below is done at any later step, e.g. after
> +	 * the loop, CPU #x will just exit at (C) and miss flushing out all of
> +	 * its added pages.
> +	 */
> +	WRITE_ONCE(lru_drain_gen, lru_drain_gen + 1);
> +	smp_wmb();
>   
>   	cpumask_clear(&has_work);
> -
>   	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>   		struct work_struct *work = &per_cpu(lru_add_drain_work, cpu);
>   
> @@ -766,7 +803,7 @@ void lru_add_drain_all(void)
>   {
>   	lru_add_drain();
>   }
> -#endif
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
>   
>   /**
>    * release_pages - batched put_page()
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists