Message-ID: <CAKgT0UcDbzb_MXynzZANvJ_bV4VEguhxgOt2-hp4cNtvwE-r_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:20:53 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     "Duyck, Alexander H" <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: Add function for testing if the current lruvec
 lock is valid

Feel free to fold it into your patches if you want.

I think Hugh was the one that had submitted a patch that addressed it,
and it looks like you folded that into your v17 set. It was probably
what he had identified which was the additional LRU checks needing to
be removed from the code.

Thanks.

- Alex

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:55 PM Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
> It looks much better than mine. and could replace 'mm/lru: introduce the relock_page_lruvec function'
> with your author signed. :)
>
> BTW,
> it's the rcu_read_lock cause the will-it-scale/page_fault3 regression which you mentained in another
> letter?
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
> 在 2020/8/1 上午5:14, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com 写道:
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > When testing for relock we can avoid the need for RCU locking if we simply
> > compare the page pgdat and memcg pointers versus those that the lruvec is
> > holding. By doing this we can avoid the extra pointer walks and accesses of
> > the memory cgroup.
> >
> > In addition we can avoid the checks entirely if lruvec is currently NULL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/memcontrol.h |   52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index 6e670f991b42..7a02f00bf3de 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -405,6 +405,22 @@ static inline struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_lruvec(struct mem_cgroup *memcg,
> >
> >  struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *, struct pglist_data *);
> >
> > +static inline bool lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(struct page *page,
> > +                                           struct lruvec *lruvec)
> > +{
> > +     pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> > +     const struct mem_cgroup *memcg;
> > +     struct mem_cgroup_per_node *mz;
> > +
> > +     if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > +             return lruvec == &pgdat->__lruvec;
> > +
> > +     mz = container_of(lruvec, struct mem_cgroup_per_node, lruvec);
> > +     memcg = page->mem_cgroup ? : root_mem_cgroup;
> > +
> > +     return lruvec->pgdat == pgdat && mz->memcg == memcg;
> > +}
> > +
> >  struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_task(struct task_struct *p);
> >
> >  struct mem_cgroup *get_mem_cgroup_from_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > @@ -880,6 +896,14 @@ static inline struct lruvec *mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(struct page *page,
> >       return &pgdat->__lruvec;
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(struct page *page,
> > +                                           struct lruvec *lruvec)
> > +{
> > +             pg_data_t *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> > +
> > +             return lruvec == &pgdat->__lruvec;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline struct mem_cgroup *parent_mem_cgroup(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >  {
> >       return NULL;
> > @@ -1317,18 +1341,12 @@ static inline void unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> >  static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
> >               struct lruvec *locked_lruvec)
> >  {
> > -     struct pglist_data *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> > -     bool locked;
> > +     if (locked_lruvec) {
> > +             if (lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(page, locked_lruvec))
> > +                     return locked_lruvec;
> >
> > -     rcu_read_lock();
> > -     locked = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat) == locked_lruvec;
> > -     rcu_read_unlock();
> > -
> > -     if (locked)
> > -             return locked_lruvec;
> > -
> > -     if (locked_lruvec)
> >               unlock_page_lruvec_irq(locked_lruvec);
> > +     }
> >
> >       return lock_page_lruvec_irq(page);
> >  }
> > @@ -1337,18 +1355,12 @@ static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irq(struct page *page,
> >  static inline struct lruvec *relock_page_lruvec_irqsave(struct page *page,
> >               struct lruvec *locked_lruvec, unsigned long *flags)
> >  {
> > -     struct pglist_data *pgdat = page_pgdat(page);
> > -     bool locked;
> > -
> > -     rcu_read_lock();
> > -     locked = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat) == locked_lruvec;
> > -     rcu_read_unlock();
> > -
> > -     if (locked)
> > -             return locked_lruvec;
> > +     if (locked_lruvec) {
> > +             if (lruvec_holds_page_lru_lock(page, locked_lruvec))
> > +                     return locked_lruvec;
> >
> > -     if (locked_lruvec)
> >               unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(locked_lruvec, *flags);
> > +     }
> >
> >       return lock_page_lruvec_irqsave(page, flags);
> >  }
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists