| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <996ee883ce7644e0238b37799f025f16@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 22:11:03 -0700
From: Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...nel.org>,
Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...el.com, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: fs: invalidate bh_lrus for only cold path
On 2021-06-18 15:05, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 01:52:46PM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
>> On 2021-06-02 15:45, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 04:15:40PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 07:54:25 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > kernel test robot reported the regression of fio.write_iops[1]
>> > > > with [2].
>> > > >
>> > > > Since lru_add_drain is called frequently, invalidate bh_lrus
>> > > > there could increase bh_lrus cache miss ratio, which needs
>> > > > more IO in the end.
>> > > >
>> > > > This patch moves the bh_lrus invalidation from the hot path(
>> > > > e.g., zap_page_range, pagevec_release) to cold path(i.e.,
>> > > > lru_add_drain_all, lru_cache_disable).
>> > >
>> > > This code is starting to hurt my brain.
>> > >
>> > > What are the locking/context rules for invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu()?
>> >
>> >
>> > > AFAICT it offers no protection against two CPUs concurrently running
>> > > __invalidate_bh_lrus() against the same bh_lru.
>> >
>> > The lru_add_drain_per_cpu will run on per-cpu since it's per-cpu work
>> > and invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu will run under bh_lru_lock so I couldn't
>> > imagine that race can happen.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > So when CONFIG_SMP=y, invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu() must always and only be
>> > > run on the cpu which owns the bh_lru. In which case why does it have
>> > > the `cpu' arg?
>> >
>> > I just wanted to express both lru_add_drain_cpu and
>> > invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu
>> > in lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain run in the same cpu but look like a bad
>> > idea
>> > since it makes people confused. Let me remove the cpu argument from
>> > invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Your new lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain() follows these rules by calling
>> > > invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu() from a per-cpu worker or when CONFIG_SMP=n.
>> > >
>> > > I think. It's all as clear as mud and undocumented. Could you please
>> > > take a look at this? Comment the locking/context rules thoroughly and
>> > > check that they are being followed? Not forgetting cpu hotplug...
>> > > See if
>> > > there's a way of simplifying/clarifying the code?
>> > >
>> > > The fact that swap.c has those #ifdef CONFIG_SMPs in there is a hint
>> > > that we're doing something wrong (or poorly) in there. Perhaps that's
>> > > unavoidable because of all the fancy footwork in
>> > > __lru_add_drain_all().
>> > >
>> >
>> > Hopefully, this is better.
>> >
>> > From 8d58e7ade3ed6c080995dec1395b1e130b3d16b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> > Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:19:17 -0700
>> > Subject: [PATCH] mm: fs: invalidate bh_lrus for only cold path
>> >
>> > kernel test robot reported the regression of fio.write_iops[1]
>> > with [2].
>> >
>> > Since lru_add_drain is called frequently, invalidate bh_lrus
>> > there could increase bh_lrus cache miss ratio, which needs
>> > more IO in the end.
>> >
>> > This patch moves the bh_lrus invalidation from the hot path(
>> > e.g., zap_page_range, pagevec_release) to cold path(i.e.,
>> > lru_add_drain_all, lru_cache_disable).
>> >
>> > [1]
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210520083144.GD14190@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
>> > [2] 8cc621d2f45d, mm: fs: invalidate BH LRU during page migration
>> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>> > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
>> > ---
>> > fs/buffer.c | 8 ++++++--
>> > include/linux/buffer_head.h | 4 ++--
>> > mm/swap.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
>> > 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
>> > index 673cfbef9eec..bdaffed39030 100644
>> > --- a/fs/buffer.c
>> > +++ b/fs/buffer.c
>> > @@ -1487,12 +1487,16 @@ void invalidate_bh_lrus(void)
>> > }
>> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(invalidate_bh_lrus);
>> >
>> > -void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu)
>> > +/*
>> > + * It's called from workqueue context so we need a bh_lru_lock to close
>> > + * the race with preemption/irq.
>> > + */
>> > +void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void)
>> > {
>> > struct bh_lru *b;
>> >
>> > bh_lru_lock();
>> > - b = per_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus, cpu);
>> > + b = this_cpu_ptr(&bh_lrus);
>> > __invalidate_bh_lrus(b);
>> > bh_lru_unlock();
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
>> > index e7e99da31349..b04d34bab124 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
>> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ void __breadahead_gfp(struct block_device *,
>> > sector_t block, unsigned int size,
>> > struct buffer_head *__bread_gfp(struct block_device *,
>> > sector_t block, unsigned size, gfp_t gfp);
>> > void invalidate_bh_lrus(void);
>> > -void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu);
>> > +void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void);
>> > bool has_bh_in_lru(int cpu, void *dummy);
>> > struct buffer_head *alloc_buffer_head(gfp_t gfp_flags);
>> > void free_buffer_head(struct buffer_head * bh);
>> > @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static inline int inode_has_buffers(struct inode
>> > *inode) { return 0; }
>> > static inline void invalidate_inode_buffers(struct inode *inode) {}
>> > static inline int remove_inode_buffers(struct inode *inode) { return 1;
>> > }
>> > static inline int sync_mapping_buffers(struct address_space *mapping)
>> > { return 0; }
>> > -static inline void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(int cpu) {}
>> > +static inline void invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(void) {}
>> > static inline bool has_bh_in_lru(int cpu, void *dummy) { return 0; }
>> > #define buffer_heads_over_limit 0
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
>> > index 1958d5feb148..4d9ec3c3c5a9 100644
>> > --- a/mm/swap.c
>> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> > @@ -642,7 +642,6 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu)
>> > pagevec_lru_move_fn(pvec, lru_lazyfree_fn);
>> >
>> > activate_page_drain(cpu);
>> > - invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu);
>> > }
>> >
>> > /**
>> > @@ -725,6 +724,20 @@ void lru_add_drain(void)
>> > local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
>> > }
>> >
>> > +/*
>> > + * It's called from per-cpu workqueue context in SMP case so
>> > + * lru_add_drain_cpu and invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu should run on
>> > + * the same cpu. It shouldn't be a problem in !SMP case since
>> > + * the core is only one and the locks will disable preemption.
>> > + */
>> > +static void lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain(void)
>> > +{
>> > + local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
>> > + lru_add_drain_cpu(smp_processor_id());
>> > + local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
>> > + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu();
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > void lru_add_drain_cpu_zone(struct zone *zone)
>> > {
>> > local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
>> > @@ -739,7 +752,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct,
>> > lru_add_drain_work);
>> >
>> > static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(struct work_struct *dummy)
>> > {
>> > - lru_add_drain();
>> > + lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain();
>> > }
>> >
>> > /*
>> > @@ -880,7 +893,7 @@ void lru_cache_disable(void)
>> > */
>> > __lru_add_drain_all(true);
>> > #else
>> > - lru_add_drain();
>> > + lru_add_and_bh_lrus_drain();
>> > #endif
>> > }
>>
>> Hi Minchan,
>>
>> This looks good to me. Feel free to add:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@...eaurora.org>
>
> Thanks for the review, Chris.
>
> Andrew, could you take a look?
Hi Andrew,
Have you been able to look over the second version of Minchan's patch?
Thanks,
Chris.
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
Powered by blists - more mailing lists