linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under multi-threading

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: <ZddqBZ7dYrcFycjM@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:36:37 +0800
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
To: rulinhuang <rulin.huang@...el.com>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, colin.king@...el.com, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	lstoakes@...il.com, tianyou.li@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com,
	wangyang.guo@...el.com, zhiguo.zhou@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under
 multi-threading

On 02/22/24 at 01:52pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> Hello, Rulinhuang!
> 
> > Hi Uladzislau and Andrew, we have rebased it(Patch v4) on branch 
> > mm-unstable and remeasured it. Could you kindly help confirm if 
> > this is the right base to work on?
> > Compared to the previous result at kernel v6.7 with a 5% performance 
> > gain on intel icelake(160 vcpu), we only had a 0.6% with this commit 
> > base. But we think our modification still has some significance. On 
> > the one hand, this does reduce a critical section. On the other hand, 
> > we have a 4% performance gain on intel sapphire rapids(224 vcpu), 
> > which suggests more performance improvement would likely be achieved 
> > when the core count of processors increases to hundreds or 
> > even thousands.
> > Thank you again for your comments.
> >
> According to the patch that was a correct rebase. Right a small delta
> on your 160 CPUs is because of removing a contention. As for bigger
> systems it is bigger impact, like you point here on your 224 vcpu
> results where you see %4 perf improvement.
> 
> So we should fix it. But the way how it is fixed is not optimal from
> my point of view, because the patch that is in question spreads the
> internals from alloc_vmap_area(), like inserting busy area, across
> many parts now.

I happened to walk into this thread and come up with one draft patch.
Please help check if it's ok.

>From 0112e39b3a8454a288e1bcece220c4599bac5326 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:26:59 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc.c: avoid repeatedly requiring lock unnecessarily
Content-type: text/plain

By moving setup_vmalloc_vm() into alloc_vmap_area(), we can reduce
requiring lock one time in short time.

Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
---
 mm/vmalloc.c | 23 ++++++++---------------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index aeee71349157..6bda3c06b484 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1848,7 +1848,10 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,
 				unsigned long align,
 				unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
 				int node, gfp_t gfp_mask,
-				unsigned long va_flags)
+				unsigned long va_flags,
+				struct vm_struct *vm,
+				unsigned long vm_flags,
+				const void *caller)
 {
 	struct vmap_node *vn;
 	struct vmap_area *va;
@@ -1915,6 +1918,8 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,
 
 	spin_lock(&vn->busy.lock);
 	insert_vmap_area(va, &vn->busy.root, &vn->busy.head);
+	if (!(va_flags & VMAP_RAM) && vm)
+		setup_vmalloc_vm(vm, va, vm_flags, caller);
 	spin_unlock(&vn->busy.lock);
 
 	BUG_ON(!IS_ALIGNED(va->va_start, align));
@@ -2947,7 +2952,7 @@ void __init vm_area_register_early(struct vm_struct *vm, size_t align)
 	kasan_populate_early_vm_area_shadow(vm->addr, vm->size);
 }
 
-static inline void setup_vmalloc_vm_locked(struct vm_struct *vm,
+static inline void setup_vmalloc_vm(struct vm_struct *vm,
 	struct vmap_area *va, unsigned long flags, const void *caller)
 {
 	vm->flags = flags;
@@ -2957,16 +2962,6 @@ static inline void setup_vmalloc_vm_locked(struct vm_struct *vm,
 	va->vm = vm;
 }
 
-static void setup_vmalloc_vm(struct vm_struct *vm, struct vmap_area *va,
-			      unsigned long flags, const void *caller)
-{
-	struct vmap_node *vn = addr_to_node(va->va_start);
-
-	spin_lock(&vn->busy.lock);
-	setup_vmalloc_vm_locked(vm, va, flags, caller);
-	spin_unlock(&vn->busy.lock);
-}
-
 static void clear_vm_uninitialized_flag(struct vm_struct *vm)
 {
 	/*
@@ -3009,8 +3004,6 @@ static struct vm_struct *__get_vm_area_node(unsigned long size,
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
-	setup_vmalloc_vm(area, va, flags, caller);
-
 	/*
 	 * Mark pages for non-VM_ALLOC mappings as accessible. Do it now as a
 	 * best-effort approach, as they can be mapped outside of vmalloc code.
@@ -4586,7 +4579,7 @@ struct vm_struct **pcpu_get_vm_areas(const unsigned long *offsets,
 
 		spin_lock(&vn->busy.lock);
 		insert_vmap_area(vas[area], &vn->busy.root, &vn->busy.head);
-		setup_vmalloc_vm_locked(vms[area], vas[area], VM_ALLOC,
+		setup_vmalloc_vm(vms[area], vas[area], VM_ALLOC,
 				 pcpu_get_vm_areas);
 		spin_unlock(&vn->busy.lock);
 	}
-- 
2.41.0