Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: split the file's i_mmap tree for NUMA

[Huang Shijie <huangsj@hygon.cn>]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 05:33:21PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2026 at 02:20:39PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> >   In NUMA, there are maybe many NUMA nodes and many CPUs.
> > For example, a Hygon's server has 12 NUMA nodes, and 384 CPUs.
> > In the UnixBench tests, there is a test "execl" which tests
> > the execve system call.
> > 
> >   When we test our server with "./Run -c 384 execl",
> > the test result is not good enough. The i_mmap locks contended heavily on
> > "libc.so" and "ld.so". For example, the i_mmap tree for "libc.so" can have 
> > over 6000 VMAs, all the VMAs can be in different NUMA mode.
> > The insert/remove operations do not run quickly enough.
> > 
> > patch 1 & patch 2 are try to hide the direct access of i_mmap.
> > patch 3 splits the i_mmap into sibling trees, and we can get better 
> > performance with this patch set:
> >     we can get 77% performance improvement(10 times average)
> > 
> 
> To my reading you kept the lock as-is and only distributed the protected
> state.
> 
> While I don't doubt the improvement, I'm confident should you take a
> look at the profile you are going to find this still does not scale with
> rwsem being one of the problems (there are other global locks, some of
> which have experimental patches for).
> 
> Apart from that this does nothing to help high core systems which are
> all one node, which imo puts another question mark on this specific
> proposal.
> 
> Of course one may question whether a RB tree is the right choice here,
> it may be the lock-protected cost can go way down with merely a better
> data structure.
> 
> Regardless of that, for actual scalability, there will be no way around
> decentralazing locking around this and partitioning per some core count
> (not just by numa awareness).
> 
> Decentralizing locking is definitely possible, but I have not looked
> into specifics of how problematic it is. Best case scenario it will
> merely with separate locks. Worst case scenario something needs a fully
> stabilized state for traversal, in that case another rw lock can be
> slapped around this, creating locking order read lock -> per-subset
> write lock -- this will suffer scalability due to the read locking, but
> it will still scale drastically better as apart from that there will be
> no serialization. In this setting the problematic consumer will write
> lock the new thing to stabilize the state.
For your proposal in no-numa, I hope you can create a patch set for it.
I can test it in our machine.

Thanks
Huang Shijie