linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: reduce spinlock contention in release

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: <CA+PpKPmHfHca07W8aO+3bGjsqpUYOid=qBzm6dNuTyMmmkEpzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 14:54:23 +0800
From:   Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: reduce spinlock contention in release_pages()

On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 2:04 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 08:02:38AM +0000, Hao Lee wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 03:30:44AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:24:02AM +0800, Hao Lee wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:31 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > > > > We do batch currently so no single task should be
> > > > > able to monopolize the cpu for too long. Why this is not sufficient?
> > > >
> > > > uncharge and unref indeed take advantage of the batch process, but
> > > > del_from_lru needs more time to complete. Several tasks will contend
> > > > spinlock in the loop if nr is very large.
> > >
> > > Is SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX too large?  Or does your architecture's spinlock
> > > implementation need to be fixed?
> > >
> >
> > My testing server is x86_64 with 5.16-rc2. The spinlock should be normal.
> >
> > I think lock_batch is not the point. lock_batch only break spinning time
> > into small parts, but it doesn't reduce spinning time. The thing may get
> > worse if lock_batch is very small.
>
> OK.  So if I understand right, you've got a lot of processes all
> calling exit_mmap() at the same time, which eventually becomes calls to
> unmap_vmas(), unmap_single_vma(), unmap_page_range(), zap_pte_range(),
> tlb_flush_mmu(), tlb_batch_pages_flush(), free_pages_and_swap_cache(),
> release_pages(), and then you see high contention on the LRU lock.

Exactly.

>
> Your use-case doesn't seem to mind sleeping (after all, these processes
> are exiting).

Yes!

>  So we could put a semaphore in exit_mmap() to limit the
> number of simultaneous callers to unmap_vmas().  Do you want to try
> that out and see if it solves your problem?  You might want to make it
> a counting semaphore (eg permit two tasks to exit at once) rather than
> a mutex.  But maybe a mutex is just fine.

This is really a good idea. My train of thought was trapped in reducing the
lock contention. I will try to implement this idea and see if the service
stability will be improved much. Thanks for your help!