Message-ID: <Y7LIPOc/ESmhRzYk@hyeyoo>
Date:   Mon, 2 Jan 2023 21:04:12 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
        ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, michel@...pinasse.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] about the maple tree and current status of mmap_lock
 scalability

From: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, surenb@...gle.com,
	ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, michel@...pinasse.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] about the maple tree and current status of mmap_lock
 scalability
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <Y63FmaNoLAcdsLaU@...per.infradead.org>

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 04:51:37PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 11:22:28PM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 08:50:36PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > The long term goal is even larger than this.  Ideally, the VMA tree
> > > would be protected by a spinlock rather than a mutex. 
> > 
> > You mean replacing mmap_lock rwsem with a spinlock?
> > How is that possible if readers can take it for page fault?
> 
> The mmap_lock is taken for many, many things.  So the plan was to
> have a spinlock in the maple tree (indeed, there's still one there;
> it's just in a union with the lockdep_map_p).  VMA readers would walk
> the tree protected only by RCU; VMA writers would take the spinlock
> while modifying the tree.  The work Suren, Liam & I are engaged in
> still uses the mmap semaphore for writers, but we do walk the tree
> under RCU protection.
> 

Thanks, I get it. so it's for less overhead for maple tree modification.

> > > While I've read the RCUVM paper, I wouldn't say it was particularly an
> > > inspiration.  The Maple Tree is independent of the VM; it's a general
> > > purpose B-tree.
> > 
> > My intention was to ask how to synchronize with other VMA operations
> > after the tree traversal with RCU. (Because it's unreasonable to handle
> > page fault in RCU read-side critical section)
> > 
> > Per-VMA lock seem to solve it by taking the VMA lock in read mode within
> > RCU read-side critical section.
> 
> Right, but it's a little more complex than that.  The real "lock" on
> the VMA is actually a sequence count.  https://lwn.net/Articles/906852/
> does a good job of explaining it, but the VMA lock is really there as
> a convenient way for the writer to wait for readers to be sufficiently
> "finished" with handling the page fault that any conflicting changes
> will be correctly retired.

Oh, thanks, nice article!

> https://www.infradead.org/~willy/linux/store-free-page-faults.html
> outlines how I intend to proceed from Suren's current scheme (where
> RCU is only used to protect the tree walk) to using RCU for the
> entire page fault.

Thank you for sharing this your outlines.
Okay, so the planned scheme is:

	1. Try to process entire page fault under RCU protection
		- if failed, goto 2. if succeeded, goto 4.

	2. Fall back to Suren's scheme (try to take VMA rwsem)
		- if failed, goto 3. if succeeded, goto 4.

	3. Fall back to mmap_lock
		- goto 4.

	4. Finish page fault.

To implement 1, __p*d_alloc() need to take gfp flags
not to sleep in RCU read-side critical section.

What about introducing PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT process flag forcing
GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN

similar to PF_MEMALLOC_NO{FS,IO}, looking like this?

Will be less churn.

diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 853d08f7562b..77b88f30523b 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1725,7 +1725,7 @@ extern struct pid *cad_pid;
 #define PF_USED_MATH		0x00002000	/* If unset the fpu must be initialized before use */
 #define PF__HOLE__00004000	0x00004000
 #define PF_NOFREEZE		0x00008000	/* This thread should not be frozen */
-#define PF__HOLE__00010000	0x00010000
+#define PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT	0x00010000	/* All allocation requests will force GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN */
 #define PF_KSWAPD		0x00020000	/* I am kswapd */
 #define PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS	0x00040000	/* All allocation requests will inherit GFP_NOFS */
 #define PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO	0x00080000	/* All allocation requests will inherit GFP_NOIO */
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/mm.h b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
index 2a243616f222..4a1196646951 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/mm.h
@@ -204,7 +204,8 @@ static inline gfp_t current_gfp_context(gfp_t flags)
 {
 	unsigned int pflags = READ_ONCE(current->flags);
 
-	if (unlikely(pflags & (PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO | PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS | PF_MEMALLOC_PIN))) {
+	if (unlikely(pflags & (PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO | PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS
+					| PF_MEMALLOC_PIN | PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT))) {
 		/*
 		 * NOIO implies both NOIO and NOFS and it is a weaker context
 		 * so always make sure it makes precedence
@@ -216,6 +217,8 @@ static inline gfp_t current_gfp_context(gfp_t flags)
 
 		if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_PIN)
 			flags &= ~__GFP_MOVABLE;
+		if (pflags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT)
+			flags = GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN;
 	}
 	return flags;
 }
@@ -305,6 +308,18 @@ static inline void memalloc_noio_restore(unsigned int flags)
 	current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO) | flags;
 }
 
+static inline unsigned int memalloc_nowait_save(void)
+{
+	unsigned int flags = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT;
+	current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT;
+	return flags;
+}
+
+static inline void memalloc_nowait_restore(unsigned int flags)
+{
+	current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC_NOWAIT) | flags;


-- 
Thanks,
Hyeonggon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists