From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:23:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871u4zi7a4.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1378416466-30913-2-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> writes:
> Currently all of page table handling by hugetlbfs code are done under
> mm->page_table_lock. So when a process have many threads and they heavily
> access to the memory, lock contention happens and impacts the performance.
>
> This patch makes hugepage support split page table lock so that we use
> page->ptl of the leaf node of page table tree which is pte for normal pages
> but can be pmd and/or pud for hugepages of some architectures.
>
> ChangeLog v3:
> - disable split ptl for ppc with USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB.
> - remove replacement in some architecture dependent code. This is justified
> because an allocation of pgd/pud/pmd/pte entry can race with other
> allocation, not with read/write access, so we can use different locks.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/106292/focus=106458
>
> ChangeLog v2:
> - add split ptl on other archs missed in v1
> - drop changes on arch/{powerpc,tile}/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> ---
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 20 +++++++++++
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 2 ++
> mm/hugetlb.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +--
> mm/migrate.c | 4 +--
> mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/hugetlb.h v3.11-rc3/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index 0393270..5cb8a4e 100644
> --- v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ v3.11-rc3/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,24 @@ extern const unsigned long hugetlb_zero, hugetlb_infinity;
> extern int sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group;
> extern struct list_head huge_boot_pages;
>
> +#if USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({__pte_lockptr(virt_to_page(ptep)); })
> +#else /* !USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB */
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({&(mm)->page_table_lock; })
> +#endif /* USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB */
> +
> +#define huge_pte_offset_lock(mm, address, ptlp) \
> +({ \
> + pte_t *__pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, address); \
> + spinlock_t *__ptl = NULL; \
> + if (__pte) { \
> + __ptl = huge_pte_lockptr(mm, __pte); \
> + *(ptlp) = __ptl; \
> + spin_lock(__ptl); \
> + } \
> + __pte; \
> +})
why not a static inline function ?
> +
> /* arch callbacks */
>
> pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm,> @@ -164,6 +182,8 @@ static inline void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> BUG();
> }
>
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) 0
> +
> #endif /* !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
>
> #define HUGETLB_ANON_FILE "anon_hugepage"
> diff --git v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/mm_types.h v3.11-rc3/include/linux/mm_types.h
> index fb425aa..cfb8c6f 100644
> --- v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/mm_types.h
> +++ v3.11-rc3/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
> struct address_space;
>
> #define USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS (NR_CPUS >= CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS)
> +#define USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB \
> + (USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS && !defined(CONFIG_PPC))
>
Is that a common pattern ? Don't we generally use
HAVE_ARCH_SPLIT_PTLOCKS in arch config file ? Also are we sure this is
only an issue with PPC ?
-aneesh
--
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: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:23:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871u4zi7a4.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1378416466-30913-2-git-send-email-n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com> writes:
> Currently all of page table handling by hugetlbfs code are done under
> mm->page_table_lock. So when a process have many threads and they heavily
> access to the memory, lock contention happens and impacts the performance.
>
> This patch makes hugepage support split page table lock so that we use
> page->ptl of the leaf node of page table tree which is pte for normal pages
> but can be pmd and/or pud for hugepages of some architectures.
>
> ChangeLog v3:
> - disable split ptl for ppc with USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB.
> - remove replacement in some architecture dependent code. This is justified
> because an allocation of pgd/pud/pmd/pte entry can race with other
> allocation, not with read/write access, so we can use different locks.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/106292/focus=106458
>
> ChangeLog v2:
> - add split ptl on other archs missed in v1
> - drop changes on arch/{powerpc,tile}/mm/hugetlbpage.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
> ---
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 20 +++++++++++
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 2 ++
> mm/hugetlb.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +--
> mm/migrate.c | 4 +--
> mm/rmap.c | 2 +-
> 6 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/hugetlb.h v3.11-rc3/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> index 0393270..5cb8a4e 100644
> --- v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> +++ v3.11-rc3/include/linux/hugetlb.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,24 @@ extern const unsigned long hugetlb_zero, hugetlb_infinity;
> extern int sysctl_hugetlb_shm_group;
> extern struct list_head huge_boot_pages;
>
> +#if USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({__pte_lockptr(virt_to_page(ptep)); })
> +#else /* !USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB */
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) ({&(mm)->page_table_lock; })
> +#endif /* USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB */
> +
> +#define huge_pte_offset_lock(mm, address, ptlp) \
> +({ \
> + pte_t *__pte = huge_pte_offset(mm, address); \
> + spinlock_t *__ptl = NULL; \
> + if (__pte) { \
> + __ptl = huge_pte_lockptr(mm, __pte); \
> + *(ptlp) = __ptl; \
> + spin_lock(__ptl); \
> + } \
> + __pte; \
> +})
why not a static inline function ?
> +
> /* arch callbacks */
>
> pte_t *huge_pte_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm,> @@ -164,6 +182,8 @@ static inline void __unmap_hugepage_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
> BUG();
> }
>
> +#define huge_pte_lockptr(mm, ptep) 0
> +
> #endif /* !CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
>
> #define HUGETLB_ANON_FILE "anon_hugepage"
> diff --git v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/mm_types.h v3.11-rc3/include/linux/mm_types.h
> index fb425aa..cfb8c6f 100644
> --- v3.11-rc3.orig/include/linux/mm_types.h
> +++ v3.11-rc3/include/linux/mm_types.h
> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
> struct address_space;
>
> #define USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS (NR_CPUS >= CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS)
> +#define USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS_HUGETLB \
> + (USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS && !defined(CONFIG_PPC))
>
Is that a common pattern ? Don't we generally use
HAVE_ARCH_SPLIT_PTLOCKS in arch config file ? Also are we sure this is
only an issue with PPC ?
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-08 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-05 21:27 [PATCH 0/2 v3] split page table lock for hugepage Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 21:27 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 21:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 21:27 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-08 16:53 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2013-09-08 16:53 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-09 16:26 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-09 16:26 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 21:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] thp: " Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 21:27 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-06 10:48 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-06 10:48 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-06 16:27 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-06 16:27 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-06 16:46 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-06 16:46 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-06 17:15 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-06 17:15 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-08 16:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-08 16:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-06 16:04 ` Alex Thorlton
2013-09-06 16:04 ` Alex Thorlton
2013-09-06 18:01 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-06 18:01 ` Naoya Horiguchi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-30 17:18 [PATCH 0/2 v2] split page table lock for hugepage Naoya Horiguchi
2013-08-30 17:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] hugetlbfs: support split page table lock Naoya Horiguchi
2013-08-30 17:18 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-04 7:13 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-04 7:13 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-04 16:32 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-04 16:32 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 9:18 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-05 9:18 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2013-09-05 15:23 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-09-05 15:23 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-05-28 19:52 [PATCH 0/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2013-05-28 19:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Naoya Horiguchi
2013-05-28 19:52 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-05-29 1:09 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-05-29 1:09 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-06-03 13:19 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-03 13:19 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-03 14:34 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-06-03 14:34 ` Naoya Horiguchi
2013-06-03 15:42 ` Michal Hocko
2013-06-03 15:42 ` Michal Hocko
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=871u4zi7a4.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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.