Date:   Sun, 25 Jun 2023 11:28:04 +0800
From:   Peng Zhang <perlyzhang@...il.com>
To:     Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
Cc:     maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] maple_tree: Refine mas_preallocate() node
 calculations



在 2023/6/23 00:41, Danilo Krummrich 写道:
> On 6/12/23 22:39, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
>> Calculate the number of nodes based on the pending write action instead
>> of assuming the worst case.
> 
> Liam already gave me a heads-up on this patch, which I already replied 
> to [1].
> 
> However, I think it might make sense to also reply to this patch directly.
> 
> For a mas_preallocate() calculating the actual required nodes to be 
> allocated instead of assuming the worst to work, it is required to 
> ensure that the tree does not change between calling mas_preallocate() 
> and mas_store_prealloc() if my understanding is correct.
> 
> In DRM however, more specifically the DRM GPUVA Manager [2], we do have 
> the case that we are not able to ensure this:
> 
> Jobs to create GPU mappings can be submitted by userspace, are queued up 
> by the kernel and are processed asynchronously in dma-fence signalling 
> critical paths, e.g. by using the drm_gpu_scheduler. Hence, we must be 
> able to allocate the worst case amount of node, since at the time a job 
> is submitted we can't predict the state the maple tree keeping track of 
> mappings has once a mapping is inserted in the (asynchronous) dma-fence 
> signalling critical path.
> 
> A more detailed explanation can be found in [1].
> 
> Could we keep a separate function for allocating the worst case amount 
> of nodes additionally to this optimization? E.g. something like 
> mas_preallocate_worst_case() or mas_preallocate_unlocked() (since I 
> guess the new one requires the maple tree to be kept locked in order not 
> to change)?
Hi Danilo,

Your understanding seems incorrect. Even with previously unoptimized
mas_preallocate(), the maple tree cannot be modified between calls to
mas_preallocate() and mas_store_prealloc(). The calculation of the
number of pre-allocated nodes depends on the structure of the maple
tree. In the unoptimized mas_preallocate(), it depends on the height of
the tree. If the maple tree is modified before mas_store_prealloc() and
the height of the tree changes, the number of pre-allocated nodes is
inaccurate.

Regards,
Peng

> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/nouveau/68cd25de-e767-725e-2e7b-703217230bb0@redhat.com/T/#ma326e200b1de1e3c9df4e9fcb3bf243061fee8b5
> 
> [2] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230620004217.4700-8-dakr@redhat.com/T/#m47ab82310f87793d0f0cc1825a316eb30ad5b653
> 
> - Danilo
> 
>>
>> This addresses a performance regression introduced in platforms that
>> have longer allocation timing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   lib/maple_tree.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
>> index 048d6413a114..7ac5b5457603 100644
>> --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
>> +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
>> @@ -5541,9 +5541,55 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(mas_store_prealloc);
>>    */
>>   int mas_preallocate(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry, gfp_t gfp)
>>   {
>> +    MA_WR_STATE(wr_mas, mas, entry);
>> +    unsigned char node_size;
>> +    int request = 1;
>>       int ret;
>> -    mas_node_count_gfp(mas, 1 + mas_mt_height(mas) * 3, gfp);
>> +
>> +    if (unlikely(!mas->index && mas->last == ULONG_MAX))
>> +        goto ask_now;
>> +
>> +    mas_wr_store_setup(&wr_mas);
>> +    wr_mas.content = mas_start(mas);
>> +    /* Root expand */
>> +    if (unlikely(mas_is_none(mas) || mas_is_ptr(mas)))
>> +        goto ask_now;
>> +
>> +    if (unlikely(!mas_wr_walk(&wr_mas))) {
>> +        /* Spanning store, use worst case for now */
>> +        request = 1 + mas_mt_height(mas) * 3;
>> +        goto ask_now;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* At this point, we are at the leaf node that needs to be 
>> altered. */
>> +    /* Exact fit, no nodes needed. */
>> +    if (wr_mas.r_min == mas->index && wr_mas.r_max == mas->last)
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    mas_wr_end_piv(&wr_mas);
>> +    node_size = mas_wr_new_end(&wr_mas);
>> +    /* Slot store can avoid using any nodes */
>> +    if (node_size == wr_mas.node_end && wr_mas.offset_end - 
>> mas->offset == 1)
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    if (node_size >= mt_slots[wr_mas.type]) {
>> +        /* Split, worst case for now. */
>> +        request = 1 + mas_mt_height(mas) * 2;
>> +        goto ask_now;
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* Appending does not need any nodes */
>> +    if (node_size == wr_mas.node_end + 1 && mas->offset == 
>> wr_mas.node_end)
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>> +    /* Potential spanning rebalance collapsing a node, use worst-case */
>> +    if (node_size  - 1 <= mt_min_slots[wr_mas.type])
>> +        request = mas_mt_height(mas) * 2 - 1;
>> +
>> +    /* node store needs one node */
>> +ask_now:
>> +    mas_node_count_gfp(mas, request, gfp);
>>       mas->mas_flags |= MA_STATE_PREALLOC;
>>       if (likely(!mas_is_err(mas)))
>>           return 0;
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists