Re: [PATCH] mm: filemap: Avoid unnecessary barries and waitqueue lookups in unlock_page fastpath v5

[Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:02:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 01:15:01PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Andrew had suggested dropping v4 of the patch entirely as the numbers were
> > marginal and the complexity was high. However, even on a relatively small
> > machine running simple workloads the overhead of page_waitqueue and wakeup
> > functions is around 5% of system CPU time. That's quite high for basic
> > operations so I felt it was worth another shot. The performance figures
> > are better with this version than they were for v4 and overall the patch
> > should be more comprehensible.
> 
> Simpler patch and better performance, yay!
> 
> > This patch introduces a new page flag for 64-bit capable machines,
> > PG_waiters, to signal there are processes waiting on PG_lock and uses it to
> > avoid memory barriers and waitqueue hash lookup in the unlock_page fastpath.
> 
> The patch seems to also explicitly use it for PG_writeback, yet no
> mention of that here.
> 

I'll add a note.

> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/wait.c b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> > index 0ffa20a..f829e73 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/wait.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/wait.c
> > @@ -167,31 +167,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__wake_up_sync);	/* For internal use only */
> >   * stops them from bleeding out - it would still allow subsequent
> >   * loads to move into the critical region).
> >   */
> > +static inline void
> 
> Make that __always_inline, that way we're guaranteed to optimize the
> build time constant .page=NULL cases.
> 

Done.

> > +__prepare_to_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
> > +			struct page *page, int state, bool exclusive)
> >  {
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > +	if (page && !PageWaiters(page))
> > +		SetPageWaiters(page);
> > +	if (list_empty(&wait->task_list)) {
> > +		if (exclusive) {
> > +			wait->flags |= WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> > +			__add_wait_queue_tail(q, wait);
> > +		} else {
> 
> I'm fairly sure we've just initialized the wait thing to 0, so clearing
> the bit would be superfluous.
> 

I assume you mean the clearing of WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE. It may or may not be
superflous. If it's an on-stack wait_queue_t initialised with DEFINE_WAIT()
then it's redundant. If it's a wait_queue_t that is being reused and
sometimes used for exclusive waits and other times for non-exclusive
waits then it's required. The API allows this to happen so I see no harm
is clearing the flag like the old code did. Am I missing your point?

> > +			wait->flags &= ~WQ_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> > +			__add_wait_queue(q, wait);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> >  	set_current_state(state);
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> >  }
> > +
> > +void
> > +prepare_to_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait, int state)
> > +{
> > +	return __prepare_to_wait(q, wait, NULL, state, false);
> > +}
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait);
> >  
> >  void
> >  prepare_to_wait_exclusive(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait, int state)
> >  {
> > +	return __prepare_to_wait(q, wait, NULL, state, true);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait_exclusive);
> >  
> > @@ -228,7 +236,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(prepare_to_wait_event);
> >   * the wait descriptor from the given waitqueue if still
> >   * queued.
> >   */
> > +static inline void __finish_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait,
> > +			struct page *page)
> >  {
> 
> Same thing, make that __always_inline.
> 

Done.

> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > @@ -249,9 +258,16 @@ void finish_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> >  	if (!list_empty_careful(&wait->task_list)) {
> >  		spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> >  		list_del_init(&wait->task_list);
> > +		if (page && !waitqueue_active(q))
> > +			ClearPageWaiters(page);
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
> >  	}
> >  }
> > +
> > +void finish_wait(wait_queue_head_t *q, wait_queue_t *wait)
> > +{
> > +	return __finish_wait(q, wait, NULL);
> > +}
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(finish_wait);
> >  
> >  /**
> 
> > @@ -374,6 +427,19 @@ int __sched out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock(void *word, int bit,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock);
> >  
> > +void __wake_up_page_bit(wait_queue_head_t *wqh, struct page *page, void *word, int bit)
> > +{
> > +	struct wait_bit_key key = __WAIT_BIT_KEY_INITIALIZER(word, bit);
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&wqh->lock, flags);
> > +	if (waitqueue_active(wqh))
> > +		__wake_up_common(wqh, TASK_NORMAL, 1, 0, &key);
> > +	else
> > +		ClearPageWaiters(page);
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wqh->lock, flags);
> > +}
> 
> Seeing how word is always going to be &page->flags, might it make sense
> to remove that argument?
> 

The wait_queue was defined on-stack with DEFINE_WAIT_BIT which uses
wake_bit_function() as a wakeup function and that thing consumes both the
page->flags and the bit number it's interested in. This is used for both
PG_writeback and PG_locked so assumptions cannot really be made about
the value.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>