From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: akpm@zip.com.au
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range()
Date: 29 Aug 2002 11:31:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030635100.939.2551.camel@phantasy> (raw)
Andrew,
Attached patch implements a low latency version of "zap_page_range()".
Calls with even moderately large page ranges result in very long lock
held times and consequently very long periods of non-preemptibility.
This function is in my list of the top 3 worst offenders. It is gross.
This new version reimplements zap_page_range() as a loop over
ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE chunks. After each iteration, if a reschedule is
pending, we drop page_table_lock and automagically preempt. Note we can
not blindly drop the locks and reschedule (e.g. for the non-preempt
case) since there is a possibility to enter this codepath holding other
locks.
... I am sure you are familar with all this, its the same deal as your
low-latency work. This patch implements the "cond_resched_lock()" as we
discussed sometime back. I think this solution should be acceptable to
you and Linus.
There are other misc. cleanups, too.
This new zap_page_range() yields latency too-low-to-benchmark: <<1ms.
Please, Andrew, add this to your ever-growing list.
Robert Love
diff -urN linux-2.5.32/include/linux/sched.h linux/include/linux/sched.h
--- linux-2.5.32/include/linux/sched.h Tue Aug 27 15:26:34 2002
+++ linux/include/linux/sched.h Wed Aug 28 18:04:41 2002
@@ -898,6 +898,34 @@
__cond_resched();
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
+
+/*
+ * cond_resched_lock() - if a reschedule is pending, drop the given lock,
+ * call schedule, and on return reacquire the lock.
+ *
+ * Note: this does not assume the given lock is the _only_ lock held.
+ * The kernel preemption counter gives us "free" checking that we are
+ * atomic -- let's use it.
+ */
+static inline void cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock)
+{
+ if (need_resched() && preempt_count() == 1) {
+ _raw_spin_unlock(lock);
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+ __cond_resched();
+ spin_lock(lock);
+ }
+}
+
+#else
+
+static inline void cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock)
+{
+}
+
+#endif
+
/* Reevaluate whether the task has signals pending delivery.
This is required every time the blocked sigset_t changes.
Athread cathreaders should have t->sigmask_lock. */
diff -urN linux-2.5.32/mm/memory.c linux/mm/memory.c
--- linux-2.5.32/mm/memory.c Tue Aug 27 15:26:42 2002
+++ linux/mm/memory.c Wed Aug 28 18:03:11 2002
@@ -389,8 +389,8 @@
{
pgd_t * dir;
- if (address >= end)
- BUG();
+ BUG_ON(address >= end);
+
dir = pgd_offset(vma->vm_mm, address);
tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma);
do {
@@ -401,30 +401,43 @@
tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
}
-/*
- * remove user pages in a given range.
+#define ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE (256 * PAGE_SIZE) /* how big a chunk we loop over */
+
+/**
+ * zap_page_range - remove user pages in a given range
+ * @vma: vm_area_struct holding the applicable pages
+ * @address: starting address of pages to zap
+ * @size: number of bytes to zap
*/
void zap_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address, unsigned long size)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
mmu_gather_t *tlb;
- unsigned long start = address, end = address + size;
+ unsigned long end, block;
- /*
- * This is a long-lived spinlock. That's fine.
- * There's no contention, because the page table
- * lock only protects against kswapd anyway, and
- * even if kswapd happened to be looking at this
- * process we _want_ it to get stuck.
- */
- if (address >= end)
- BUG();
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
- flush_cache_range(vma, address, end);
- tlb = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0);
- unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, address, end);
- tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end);
+ /*
+ * This was once a long-held spinlock. Now we break the
+ * work up into ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE units and relinquish the
+ * lock after each interation. This drastically lowers
+ * lock contention and allows for a preemption point.
+ */
+ while (size) {
+ block = (size > ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE) ? ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE : size;
+ end = address + block;
+
+ flush_cache_range(vma, address, end);
+ tlb = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0);
+ unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, address, end);
+ tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, address, end);
+
+ cond_resched_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
+
+ address += block;
+ size -= block;
+ }
+
spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
}
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: akpm@zip.com.au
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range()
Date: 29 Aug 2002 11:31:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1030635100.939.2551.camel@phantasy> (raw)
Andrew,
Attached patch implements a low latency version of "zap_page_range()".
Calls with even moderately large page ranges result in very long lock
held times and consequently very long periods of non-preemptibility.
This function is in my list of the top 3 worst offenders. It is gross.
This new version reimplements zap_page_range() as a loop over
ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE chunks. After each iteration, if a reschedule is
pending, we drop page_table_lock and automagically preempt. Note we can
not blindly drop the locks and reschedule (e.g. for the non-preempt
case) since there is a possibility to enter this codepath holding other
locks.
... I am sure you are familar with all this, its the same deal as your
low-latency work. This patch implements the "cond_resched_lock()" as we
discussed sometime back. I think this solution should be acceptable to
you and Linus.
There are other misc. cleanups, too.
This new zap_page_range() yields latency too-low-to-benchmark: <<1ms.
Please, Andrew, add this to your ever-growing list.
Robert Love
diff -urN linux-2.5.32/include/linux/sched.h linux/include/linux/sched.h
--- linux-2.5.32/include/linux/sched.h Tue Aug 27 15:26:34 2002
+++ linux/include/linux/sched.h Wed Aug 28 18:04:41 2002
@@ -898,6 +898,34 @@
__cond_resched();
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
+
+/*
+ * cond_resched_lock() - if a reschedule is pending, drop the given lock,
+ * call schedule, and on return reacquire the lock.
+ *
+ * Note: this does not assume the given lock is the _only_ lock held.
+ * The kernel preemption counter gives us "free" checking that we are
+ * atomic -- let's use it.
+ */
+static inline void cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock)
+{
+ if (need_resched() && preempt_count() == 1) {
+ _raw_spin_unlock(lock);
+ preempt_enable_no_resched();
+ __cond_resched();
+ spin_lock(lock);
+ }
+}
+
+#else
+
+static inline void cond_resched_lock(spinlock_t * lock)
+{
+}
+
+#endif
+
/* Reevaluate whether the task has signals pending delivery.
This is required every time the blocked sigset_t changes.
Athread cathreaders should have t->sigmask_lock. */
diff -urN linux-2.5.32/mm/memory.c linux/mm/memory.c
--- linux-2.5.32/mm/memory.c Tue Aug 27 15:26:42 2002
+++ linux/mm/memory.c Wed Aug 28 18:03:11 2002
@@ -389,8 +389,8 @@
{
pgd_t * dir;
- if (address >= end)
- BUG();
+ BUG_ON(address >= end);
+
dir = pgd_offset(vma->vm_mm, address);
tlb_start_vma(tlb, vma);
do {
@@ -401,30 +401,43 @@
tlb_end_vma(tlb, vma);
}
-/*
- * remove user pages in a given range.
+#define ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE (256 * PAGE_SIZE) /* how big a chunk we loop over */
+
+/**
+ * zap_page_range - remove user pages in a given range
+ * @vma: vm_area_struct holding the applicable pages
+ * @address: starting address of pages to zap
+ * @size: number of bytes to zap
*/
void zap_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address, unsigned long size)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
mmu_gather_t *tlb;
- unsigned long start = address, end = address + size;
+ unsigned long end, block;
- /*
- * This is a long-lived spinlock. That's fine.
- * There's no contention, because the page table
- * lock only protects against kswapd anyway, and
- * even if kswapd happened to be looking at this
- * process we _want_ it to get stuck.
- */
- if (address >= end)
- BUG();
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
- flush_cache_range(vma, address, end);
- tlb = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0);
- unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, address, end);
- tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, start, end);
+ /*
+ * This was once a long-held spinlock. Now we break the
+ * work up into ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE units and relinquish the
+ * lock after each interation. This drastically lowers
+ * lock contention and allows for a preemption point.
+ */
+ while (size) {
+ block = (size > ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE) ? ZAP_BLOCK_SIZE : size;
+ end = address + block;
+
+ flush_cache_range(vma, address, end);
+ tlb = tlb_gather_mmu(mm, 0);
+ unmap_page_range(tlb, vma, address, end);
+ tlb_finish_mmu(tlb, address, end);
+
+ cond_resched_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
+
+ address += block;
+ size -= block;
+ }
+
spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
}
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
next reply other threads:[~2002-08-29 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-29 15:31 Robert Love [this message]
2002-08-29 15:31 ` [PATCH] low-latency zap_page_range() Robert Love
2002-08-29 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 20:30 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 20:40 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 20:40 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 20:46 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 20:46 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 20:59 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 21:38 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-29 21:38 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-29 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-29 23:06 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-29 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 21:00 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 21:12 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 21:12 ` Robert Love
2002-08-29 21:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 21:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-08-29 21:46 ` Rik van Riel
2002-08-29 21:46 ` Rik van Riel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1030635100.939.2551.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.