linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v21 17/19] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru

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: <fe584528-9d9b-ac6d-bc9a-4be2d6b98cf4@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Nov 2020 22:19:33 +0800
From:   Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, tj@...nel.org, hughd@...gle.com,
        khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.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,
        kirill@...temov.name, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
        rong.a.chen@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        shy828301@...il.com
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 17/19] mm/lru: replace pgdat lru_lock with lruvec lock



在 2020/11/12 下午8:19, Vlastimil Babka 写道:
> On 11/5/20 9:55 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> This patch moves per node lru_lock into lruvec, thus bring a lru_lock for
>> each of memcg per node. So on a large machine, each of memcg don't
>> have to suffer from per node pgdat->lru_lock competition. They could go
>> fast with their self lru_lock.
>>
>> After move memcg charge before lru inserting, page isolation could
>> serialize page's memcg, then per memcg lruvec lock is stable and could
>> replace per node lru lock.
>>
>> In func isolate_migratepages_block, compact_unlock_should_abort and
>> lock_page_lruvec_irqsave are open coded to work with compact_control.
>> Also add a debug func in locking which may give some clues if there are
>> sth out of hands.
>>
>> Daniel Jordan's testing show 62% improvement on modified readtwice case
>> on his 2P * 10 core * 2 HT broadwell box.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200915165807.kpp7uhiw7l3loofu@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com/
>>
>> On a large machine with memcg enabled but not used, the page's lruvec
>> seeking pass a few pointers, that may lead to lru_lock holding time
>> increase and a bit regression.
>>
>> Hugh Dickins helped on the patch polish, thanks!
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
>> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>
>> Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
>> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org
>> Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org
> 
> I think I need some explanation about the rcu_read_lock() usage in lock_page_lruvec*() (and places effectively opencoding it).
> Preferably in form of some code comment, but that can be also added as a additional patch later, I don't want to block the series.
> 

Hi Vlastimil, 

Thanks for comments!

Oh, we did talk about the rcu_read_lock which is used to block memcg destroy during locking.
and the spin_lock actually includes a rcu_read_lock(). Yes, we could add this comments later.

> mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() comment says
> 
>  * This function relies on page->mem_cgroup being stable - see the
>  * access rules in commit_charge().
> 
> commit_charge() comment:
> 
>          * Any of the following ensures page->mem_cgroup stability:
>          *
>          * - the page lock
>          * - LRU isolation
>          * - lock_page_memcg()
>          * - exclusive reference
> 
> "LRU isolation" used to be quite clear, but now is it after TestClearPageLRU(page) or after deleting from the lru list as well?
> Also it doesn't mention rcu_read_lock(), should it?

The lru isolation still is same as old conception, a set actions that take a page from a lru list, and commit_charge do
need a isoltion for the page.

but the condition of page_memcg could be change since we don't rely on lru isolation for it. The comments
could be changed later.

> 
> So what exactly are we protecting by rcu_read_lock() in e.g. lock_page_lruvec()?
> 
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, pgdat);
>         spin_lock(&lruvec->lru_lock);
>         rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> Looks like we are protecting the lruvec from going away and it can't go away anymore after we take the lru_lock?
> 
> But then e.g. in __munlock_pagevec() we are doing this without an rcu_read_lock():
> 
>     new_lruvec = mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(page, page_pgdat(page));

TestClearPageLRU could block the page from memcg migration/destory.

Thanks
Alex

> 
> where new_lruvec is potentionally not the one that we have locked
> 
> And the last thing mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() is doing is:
> 
>         if (unlikely(lruvec->pgdat != pgdat))
>                 lruvec->pgdat = pgdat;
>         return lruvec;
> 
> So without the rcu_read_lock() is this potentionally accessing the pgdat field of lruvec that might have just gone away?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vlastimil