All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@163.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, mhocko@kernel.org,
	js1304@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: add a helper function to check page before alloc/free
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:41:42 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150909144142.GA4934@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55F036AA.9040508@suse.cz>

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 09:19 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >bloat-o-meter looks favorably with my gcc, although there shouldn't be a real
> >reason for it, as the inlining didn't change:
> >
> >add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 285/-336 (-51)
> >function                                     old     new   delta
> >bad_page                                       -     276    +276
> >get_page_from_freelist                      2521    2530      +9
> >free_pages_prepare                           745     667     -78
> >bad_page.part                                258       -    -258
> >
> >With that,
> >
> >Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> 
> BTW, why do we do all these checks in non-DEBUG_VM builds? Are they
> so often hit nowadays? Shouldn't we check just for hwpoison in the
> non-debug case?

I personly think these checks are still needed in non-debug scenario so
we can still catch the bad page caused by a bug or other things in that
case.

> 
> Alternatively, I've considered creating a fast inline pre-check that
> calls a non-inline check-with-report:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 0c9c82a..cff92f8 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -707,7 +707,20 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>  	zone->free_area[order].nr_free++;
>  }
> 
> -static inline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
> bad_flags)
> +static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
> +		bad_flags)
> +{
> +	return (page_mapcount(page)
> +			|| page->mapping != NULL
> +			|| atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
> +			|| page->flags & bad_flags
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> +			|| page->mem_cgroup
> +#endif
> +			);
> +}
> +
> +static noinline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
> bad_flags)
>  {
>  	const char *bad_reason = NULL;
> 
> @@ -743,9 +756,12 @@ static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> 
> -	ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	ret = check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> 
>  	page_cpupid_reset_last(page);
>  	if (page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP)
> @@ -1304,7 +1320,9 @@ static inline void expand(struct zone *zone,
> struct page *page,
>   */
>  static inline int check_new_page(struct page *page)
>  {
> -	return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
> +	if (check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP | __PG_HWPOISON))
> +		return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
> +	return 0;
>  }
> 
>  static int prep_new_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
> gfp_t gfp_flags,
> 
> ---

This looks good to me.

> 
> That shrinks the fast paths nicely:
> 
> add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 480/-498 (-18)
> function                                     old     new   delta
> check_one_page                                 -     480    +480
> get_page_from_freelist                      2530    2458     -72
> free_pages_prepare                           667     517    -150
> bad_page                                     276       -    -276
> 
> On top of that, the number of branches in the fast paths can be
> reduced if we use arithmetic OR to avoid the short-circuit boolean
> evaluation:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index cff92f8..e8b42ba 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -710,12 +710,12 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>  static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
>  		bad_flags)
>  {
> -	return (page_mapcount(page)
> -			|| page->mapping != NULL
> -			|| atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
> -			|| page->flags & bad_flags
> +	return ((unsigned long) page_mapcount(page)
> +			| (unsigned long) page->mapping
> +			| (unsigned long) atomic_read(&page->_count)
> +			| (page->flags & bad_flags)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> -			|| page->mem_cgroup
> +			| (unsigned long) page->mem_cgroup
>  #endif
>  			);
>  }
> 
> That further reduces the fast paths, not much in bytes, but
> importantly in branches:
> 
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 0/-51 (-51)
> function                                     old     new   delta
> get_page_from_freelist                      2458    2443     -15
> free_pages_prepare                           517     481     -36
> 
> But I can understand it's rather hackish, and maybe some
> architectures won't be happy with the extra unsigned long
> arithmetics. Thoughts?

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yaowei Bai <bywxiaobai@163.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, mhocko@kernel.org,
	js1304@gmail.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
	alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com, sasha.levin@oracle.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: add a helper function to check page before alloc/free
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 22:41:42 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150909144142.GA4934@bbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55F036AA.9040508@suse.cz>

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 03:39:54PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 09:19 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >bloat-o-meter looks favorably with my gcc, although there shouldn't be a real
> >reason for it, as the inlining didn't change:
> >
> >add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 1/1 up/down: 285/-336 (-51)
> >function                                     old     new   delta
> >bad_page                                       -     276    +276
> >get_page_from_freelist                      2521    2530      +9
> >free_pages_prepare                           745     667     -78
> >bad_page.part                                258       -    -258
> >
> >With that,
> >
> >Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> 
> BTW, why do we do all these checks in non-DEBUG_VM builds? Are they
> so often hit nowadays? Shouldn't we check just for hwpoison in the
> non-debug case?

I personly think these checks are still needed in non-debug scenario so
we can still catch the bad page caused by a bug or other things in that
case.

> 
> Alternatively, I've considered creating a fast inline pre-check that
> calls a non-inline check-with-report:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 0c9c82a..cff92f8 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -707,7 +707,20 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>  	zone->free_area[order].nr_free++;
>  }
> 
> -static inline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
> bad_flags)
> +static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
> +		bad_flags)
> +{
> +	return (page_mapcount(page)
> +			|| page->mapping != NULL
> +			|| atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
> +			|| page->flags & bad_flags
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> +			|| page->mem_cgroup
> +#endif
> +			);
> +}
> +
> +static noinline int check_one_page(struct page *page, unsigned long
> bad_flags)
>  {
>  	const char *bad_reason = NULL;
> 
> @@ -743,9 +756,12 @@ static inline int free_pages_check(struct page *page)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> 
> -	ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> +	ret = check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		ret = check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_FREE);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> 
>  	page_cpupid_reset_last(page);
>  	if (page->flags & PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP)
> @@ -1304,7 +1320,9 @@ static inline void expand(struct zone *zone,
> struct page *page,
>   */
>  static inline int check_new_page(struct page *page)
>  {
> -	return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
> +	if (check_one_page_fast(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP | __PG_HWPOISON))
> +		return check_one_page(page, PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP);
> +	return 0;
>  }
> 
>  static int prep_new_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
> gfp_t gfp_flags,
> 
> ---

This looks good to me.

> 
> That shrinks the fast paths nicely:
> 
> add/remove: 1/1 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 480/-498 (-18)
> function                                     old     new   delta
> check_one_page                                 -     480    +480
> get_page_from_freelist                      2530    2458     -72
> free_pages_prepare                           667     517    -150
> bad_page                                     276       -    -276
> 
> On top of that, the number of branches in the fast paths can be
> reduced if we use arithmetic OR to avoid the short-circuit boolean
> evaluation:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index cff92f8..e8b42ba 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -710,12 +710,12 @@ static inline void __free_one_page(struct page *page,
>  static inline int check_one_page_fast(struct page *page, unsigned long
>  		bad_flags)
>  {
> -	return (page_mapcount(page)
> -			|| page->mapping != NULL
> -			|| atomic_read(&page->_count) != 0
> -			|| page->flags & bad_flags
> +	return ((unsigned long) page_mapcount(page)
> +			| (unsigned long) page->mapping
> +			| (unsigned long) atomic_read(&page->_count)
> +			| (page->flags & bad_flags)
>  #ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG
> -			|| page->mem_cgroup
> +			| (unsigned long) page->mem_cgroup
>  #endif
>  			);
>  }
> 
> That further reduces the fast paths, not much in bytes, but
> importantly in branches:
> 
> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 0/2 up/down: 0/-51 (-51)
> function                                     old     new   delta
> get_page_from_freelist                      2458    2443     -15
> free_pages_prepare                           517     481     -36
> 
> But I can understand it's rather hackish, and maybe some
> architectures won't be happy with the extra unsigned long
> arithmetics. Thoughts?


  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-09 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-27 12:51 [PATCH v3] mm/page_alloc: add a helper function to check page before alloc/free Yaowei Bai
2015-08-27 12:51 ` Yaowei Bai
2015-09-08 19:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-09-08 19:19   ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-09-09 13:28   ` Yaowei Bai
2015-09-09 13:28     ` Yaowei Bai
2015-09-09 13:39   ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-09-09 13:39     ` Vlastimil Babka
2015-09-09 14:41     ` Yaowei Bai [this message]
2015-09-09 14:41       ` Yaowei Bai

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=20150909144142.GA4934@bbox \
    --to=bywxiaobai@163.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.h.duyck@redhat.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=js1304@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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.