linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v13 00/18] per memcg lru lock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 21 Jun 2020 23:44:47 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
        yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com, willy@...radead.org,
        hannes@...xchg.org, lkp@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        shakeelb@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        richard.weiyang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 00/18] per memcg lru lock



在 2020/6/21 上午7:08, Andrew Morton 写道:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:33:38 +0800 Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> 
>> This is a new version which bases on linux-next, merged much suggestion
>> from Hugh Dickins, from compaction fix to less TestClearPageLRU and
>> comments reverse etc. Thank a lot, Hugh!
>>
>> Johannes Weiner has suggested:
>> "So here is a crazy idea that may be worth exploring:
>>
>> Right now, pgdat->lru_lock protects both PageLRU *and* the lruvec's
>> linked list.
>>
>> Can we make PageLRU atomic and use it to stabilize the lru_lock
>> instead, and then use the lru_lock only serialize list operations?
> 
> I don't understand this sentence.  How can a per-page flag stabilize a
> per-pgdat spinlock?  Perhaps some additional description will help.

Hi Andrew,

Well, above comments miss a context, which lru_lock means new lru_lock on each
of memcg not the current per node lru_lock. Sorry!

Currently the lru bit changed under lru_lock, so isolate a page from lru just
need take lru_lock. New patch will change it with a atomic action alone from 
lru_lock, so isolate a page need both actions: TestClearPageLRU and take the
lru_lock. like followings in isolate_lru_page():

The main reason for this comes from isolate_migratepages_block() in compaction.c
we have to take lru bit before lru lock, that serialized the page isolation in 
memcg page charge/migration which will change page's lruvec and new lru_lock
in it. The current isolation just take lru lock directly which fails on guard 
page's lruvec change(memcg change).

changes in isolate_lru_page():-	if (PageLRU(page)) {
+	if (TestClearPageLRU(page)) {
 		pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
 		struct lruvec *lruvec;
+		int lru = page_lru(page);
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
+		get_page(page);
 		lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
-		if (PageLRU(page)) {
-			int lru = page_lru(page);
-			get_page(page);
-			ClearPageLRU(page);
-			del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
-			ret = 0;
-		}
+		spin_lock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
+		del_page_from_lru_list(page, lruvec, lru);
 		spin_unlock_irq(&pgdat->lru_lock);
+		ret = 0;
 	}

> 

>>
>> Following Daniel Jordan's suggestion, I have run 208 'dd' with on 104
>> containers on a 2s * 26cores * HT box with a modefied case:
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-lru-file-readtwice
>>
>> With this patchset, the readtwice performance increased about 80%
>> in concurrent containers.
>>
>> Thanks Hugh Dickins and Konstantin Khlebnikov, they both brought this
>> idea 8 years ago, and others who give comments as well: Daniel Jordan, 
>> Mel Gorman, Shakeel Butt, Matthew Wilcox etc.
>>
>> Thanks for Testing support from Intel 0day and Rong Chen, Fengguang Wu,
>> and Yun Wang. Hugh Dickins also shared his kbuild-swap case. Thanks!
>>
>> ...
>>
>>  24 files changed, 500 insertions(+), 357 deletions(-)
> 
> It's a large patchset and afaict the whole point is performance gain. 
> 80% in one specialized test sounds nice, but is there a plan for more
> extensive quantification?

Once I got 5% aim7 performance gain on 16 cores machine, and about 20+%
readtwice performance gain. the performance gain is increased a lot following
larger cores.

Is there some suggestion for this?

> 
> There isn't much sign of completed review activity here, so I'll go
> into hiding for a while.
> 

Yes, it's relatively big. also much of change from comments part. :)
Anyway, thanks for look into!

Thanks
Alex