[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230524050259.104358-1-guoren@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 01:02:59 -0400
From: guoren@...nel.org
To: jszhang@...nel.org
Cc: aou@...s.berkeley.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, palmer@...belt.com,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, surenb@...gle.com, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: mm: try VMA lock-based page fault handling first
> Attempt VMA lock-based page fault handling first, and fall back to the
> existing mmap_lock-based handling if that fails.
>
> A simple running the ebizzy benchmark on Lichee Pi 4A shows that
> PER_VMA_LOCK can improve the ebizzy benchmark by about 32.68%. In
Good improvement, I think VMA lock is worth to support in riscv.
Please give more details about ebizzy, Is it
https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/master/utils/benchmark/ebizzy-0.3/ebizzy.c
?
> theory, the more CPUs, the bigger improvement, but I don't have any
> HW platform which has more than 4 CPUs.
>
> This is the riscv variant of "x86/mm: try VMA lock-based page fault
> handling first".
>
How about add Link tag here:
Link: https://lwn.net/Articles/906852/
> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>
> ---
> Any performance numbers are welcome! Especially the numbers on HW
> platforms with 8 or more CPUs.
>
> arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 +
> arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> index 62e84fee2cfd..b958f67f9a12 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ config RISCV
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC if MMU
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_HUGETLBFS if MMU
> select ARCH_SUPPORTS_PAGE_TABLE_CHECK if MMU
> + select ARCH_SUPPORTS_PER_VMA_LOCK if MMU
> select ARCH_USE_MEMTEST
> select ARCH_USE_QUEUED_RWLOCKS
> select ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT if MMU
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> index 8685f85a7474..eccdddf26f4b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> @@ -286,6 +286,36 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> else if (cause == EXC_INST_PAGE_FAULT)
> flags |= FAULT_FLAG_INSTRUCTION;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> + if (!(flags & FAULT_FLAG_USER))
> + goto lock_mmap;
> +
> + vma = lock_vma_under_rcu(mm, addr);
> + if (!vma)
> + goto lock_mmap;
> +
> + if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
> + vma_end_read(vma);
> + goto lock_mmap;
> + }
> +
> + fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
> + vma_end_read(vma);
> +
> + if (!(fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY)) {
> + count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
> + goto done;
> + }
> + count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_RETRY);
> +
> + if (fault_signal_pending(fault, regs)) {
> + if (!user_mode(regs))
> + no_context(regs, addr);
> + return;
> + }
> +lock_mmap:
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK */
> +
> retry:
> mmap_read_lock(mm);
> vma = find_vma(mm, addr);
> @@ -355,6 +385,9 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> mmap_read_unlock(mm);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK
> +done:
> +#endif
It's very close to cd7f176aea5f ("arm64/mm: try VMA lock-based page fault
handling first"), and I didn't find any problem. So:
Reviewed-by: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>
F.Y.I Huacai Chen, maybe he also would be interesting this new feature.
> if (unlikely(fault & VM_FAULT_ERROR)) {
> tsk->thread.bad_cause = cause;
> mm_fault_error(regs, addr, fault);
> --
> 2.40.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists