Message-ID: <be236fac-08d0-4225-bcb6-e039e1ae3ed1@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 09:58:56 -0800
From: Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>
Cc: Liam.Howlett@...cle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, jannh@...gle.com,
 oliver.sang@...el.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: vma: skip anonymous vma when inserting vma to file
 rmap tree



On 3/7/25 5:41 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 01:35:00PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 1:12 PM Lorenzo Stoakes
>> <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:49:48PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> LKP reported 800% performance improvement for small-allocs benchmark
>>>> from vm-scalability [1] with patch ("/dev/zero: make private mapping
>>>> full anonymous mapping") [2], but the patch was nack'ed since it changes
>>>> the output of smaps somewhat.
>>> Yeah sorry about that, but unfortunately something we really do have to
>>> think about (among other things, the VMA edge cases are always the source
>>> of weirdness...)
>>>
>>>> The profiling shows one of the major sources of the performance
>>>> improvement is the less contention to i_mmap_rwsem.
>>> Great work tracking that down! Sorry I lost track of the other thread.
>>>
>>>> The small-allocs benchmark creates a lot of 40K size memory maps by
>>>> mmap'ing private /dev/zero then triggers page fault on the mappings.
>>>> When creating private mapping for /dev/zero, the anonymous VMA is
>>>> created, but it has valid vm_file.  Kernel basically assumes anonymous
>>>> VMAs should have NULL vm_file, for example, mmap inserts VMA to the file
>>>> rmap tree if vm_file is not NULL.  So the private /dev/zero mapping
>>>> will be inserted to the file rmap tree, this resulted in the contention
>>>> to i_mmap_rwsem.  But it is actually anonymous VMA, so it is pointless
>>>> to insert it to file rmap tree.
>>> Ughhhh god haha.
>>>
>>>> Skip anonymous VMA for this case.  Over 400% performance improvement was
>>>> reported [3].
>>> That's insane. Amazing work.
>>>
>> Ok, so the real question (to Yang) is: who are these /dev/zero users
>> that require an insane degree of scalability, and why didn't they
>> switch to regular MAP_ANONYMOUS? Are they in the room with us?
> This could be said about a lot of benchmarks.
>
>>>> It is not on par with the 800% improvement from the original patch.  It is
>>>> because page fault handler needs to access some members of struct file
>>>> if vm_file is not NULL, for example, f_mode and f_mapping.  They are in
>>>> the same cacheline with file refcount.  When mmap'ing a file the file
>>>> refcount is inc'ed and dec'ed, this caused bad cache false sharing
>>>> problem.  The further debug showed checking whether the VMA is anonymous
>>>> or not can alleviate the problem.  But I'm not sure whether it is the
>>>> best way to handle it, maybe we should consider shuffle the layout of
>>>> struct file.
>>> Interesting, I guess you'll take a look at this also?
>> ... And this is probably a non-issue in 99% of !/dev/zero mmaps unless
>> it's something like libc.so.6 at an insane rate of execs/second.
> But the cost of fixing this is...?
>
>> This seems like a patch in search of a problem and I really don't see
>> why we should wart up the mmap code otherwise. Not that I have a huge
>> problem with this patch, which is somewhat simple and obvious.
>> It'd be great if there was a real workload driving this rather than
>> useless synthetic benchmarks.
> Disagree with first part. Disallowing a known-broken situation for very low
> cost in the majority of cases, as well as documenting that such odd
> creatures exist is valuable.

Yes, I agree. This is one of the points of this patch too. The commit 
log may focus too much on the benchmark improvement. I will add more 
words about fixing the special odd behavior.

>
> Improving benchmarks, however synthetic they may be, also valuable.
>
> But on the latter bit, yes it'd be nice if we could get information on
> real-life scenarios where this is an issue if you have it Yang.

I wish I could. As I said in the reply to Pedro, creating anonymous 
mapping via mmap'ing private /dev/zero is an established way. So we can 
not rule out it is *NOT* used.

Thanks,
Yang

>
>> --
>> Pedro
> The patch is fine as-is AFAIC, and I am very happy to reduce lock
> contention on heavily contested locks wherever I can, especially when the
> cost for doing so, in this case, is so low.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists