From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728F1C74A5B for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 08:56:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231324AbjCUI40 (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2023 04:56:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38026 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229611AbjCUIzw (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Mar 2023 04:55:52 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DFFE268B; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 01:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id bi9so18135265lfb.12; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 01:54:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1679388869; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ihWLb6YDeUm4LyXoGDvnXvPNh5dZmfkRW4mzY5FPdhM=; b=PUeizF7dzLAZJmmyz4Qbzek28PUiJv9e9blTv2pw/0T3CuhF3KprL7LCtEIm9Jbwme eIkhw77b4qrg8nCvBEJebTu6itTSeuurkArgaVZ1YEkPcyI41jLz43/Vh7vBqquQ8i8U kOx+jzUiRR6h37OW8uI+XYmgIwVnsmTugrhGPhmTmoPmHgPBJyXhBKWg8ayzUhlumy4k bFRdCdg4RWqrwp8zDPG3ryeKWj1ZQnN87by6Y6axKqfevqW3Szk7O42xikCQtp3BpKYk s5e1ElpL/7HIKEX69eQWOzjC5ha2nWhlxFcURYkt8JMO8SSVt3/trvKLrIpSd/krX5YS xniQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1679388869; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=ihWLb6YDeUm4LyXoGDvnXvPNh5dZmfkRW4mzY5FPdhM=; b=LVAZqXwUv4JeJyz3uKZcGvJQF7++9wyyP6ENQm2XmzNKtgoCSeQ0UyIr3pcsvBjV5C xoTCRLg87dhQec1ZRtSvN/xqQF5uls0KqZ33pdpJMTP3TWljNd+riDPUFKKKWPPnIiW0 OysPMXB5wuv6nvJ1PFuifFMDcLGtELQjgdYLsDN3weJFk/b6gz6qygEakFnNH1nWp6h2 DwUDjg2GGFJGFu3p8/G8EX0T9TE2CI9W16V0XD/ixpcBeMHOjP/d209CkNagmTEzNJgv NbqbKIGrAkF+XWIRSCCIA6/tUN9bUQrxW1zWWB+1cPEa+Jmg4ra6vblcUJoMDjeHEYBn 2yXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXUYQfcziE/Wzyvf4ByOjliI/buxpDWryetFuSfBTYLZn/rVWBQ QZrlalQruehajIvkf4ulSWI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+HyqoO+eZz5C//84EZqAvcFQ7KS7XwqX9sdZR0jNq+5OaFBZIEVgNAuP9hR3nhr0Nv+lsEZA== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:5a1a:0:b0:4d5:a689:7580 with SMTP id q26-20020ac25a1a000000b004d5a6897580mr582688lfn.47.1679388869163; Tue, 21 Mar 2023 01:54:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-209-15.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.209.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h11-20020ac250cb000000b004db3d57c3a8sm2079989lfm.96.2023.03.21.01.54.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Mar 2023 01:54:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:54:26 +0100 To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Dave Chinner , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Baoquan He , Matthew Wilcox , David Hildenbrand , Liu Shixin , Jiri Olsa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: vmalloc: use rwsem, mutex for vmap_area_lock and vmap_block->lock Message-ID: References: <6c7f1ac0aeb55faaa46a09108d3999e4595870d9.1679209395.git.lstoakes@gmail.com> <8cd31bcd-dad4-44e3-920f-299a656aea98@lucifer.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8cd31bcd-dad4-44e3-920f-299a656aea98@lucifer.local> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 07:45:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:23:39AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:09:31AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > > > > vmalloc() is, by design, not permitted to be used in atomic context and > > > > already contains components which may sleep, so avoiding spin locks is not > > > > a problem from the perspective of atomic context. > > > > > > > > The global vmap_area_lock is held when the red/black tree rooted in > > > > vmap_are_root is accessed and thus is rather long-held and under > > > > potentially high contention. It is likely to be under contention for reads > > > > rather than write, so replace it with a rwsem. > > > > > > > > Each individual vmap_block->lock is likely to be held for less time but > > > > under low contention, so a mutex is not an outrageous choice here. > > > > > > > > A subset of test_vmalloc.sh performance results:- > > > > > > > > fix_size_alloc_test 0.40% > > > > full_fit_alloc_test 2.08% > > > > long_busy_list_alloc_test 0.34% > > > > random_size_alloc_test -0.25% > > > > random_size_align_alloc_test 0.06% > > > > ... > > > > all tests cycles 0.2% > > > > > > > > This represents a tiny reduction in performance that sits barely above > > > > noise. > > > > > > I'm travelling right now, but give me a few days and I'll test this > > > against the XFS workloads that hammer the global vmalloc spin lock > > > really, really badly. XFS can use vm_map_ram and vmalloc really > > > heavily for metadata buffers and hit the global spin lock from every > > > CPU in the system at the same time (i.e. highly concurrent > > > workloads). vmalloc is also heavily used in the hottest path > > > throught the journal where we process and calculate delta changes to > > > several million items every second, again spread across every CPU in > > > the system at the same time. > > > > > > We really need the global spinlock to go away completely, but in the > > > mean time a shared read lock should help a little bit.... > > > > > Hugely appreciated Dave, however I must disappoint on the rwsem as I have now > reworked my patch set to use the original locks in order to satisfy Willy's > desire to make vmalloc atomic in future, and Uladzislau's desire to not have a > ~6% performance hit - > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1679354384.git.lstoakes@gmail.com/ > > > I am working on it. I submitted a proposal how to eliminate it: > > > > > > > > Hello, LSF. > > > > Title: Introduce a per-cpu-vmap-cache to eliminate a vmap lock contention > > > > Description: > > Currently the vmap code is not scaled to number of CPU cores in a system > > because a global vmap space is protected by a single spinlock. Such approach > > has a clear bottleneck if many CPUs simultaneously access to one resource. > > > > In this talk i would like to describe a drawback, show some data related > > to contentions and places where those occur in a code. Apart of that i > > would like to share ideas how to eliminate it providing a few approaches > > and compare them. > > > > Requirements: > > * It should be a per-cpu approach; > > * Search of freed ptrs should not interfere with other freeing(as much as we can); > > * - offload allocated areas(buzy ones) per-cpu; > > * Cache ready sized objects or merge them into one big per-cpu-space(split on demand); > > * Lazily-freed areas either drained per-cpu individually or by one CPU for all; > > * Prefetch a fixed size in front and allocate per-cpu > > > > Goals: > > * Implement a per-cpu way of allocation to eliminate a contention. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > -- > > Uladzislau Rezki > > > > That's really awesome! I will come to that talk at LSF/MM :) being able to > sustain the lock in atomic context seems to be an aspect that is important going > forward also. > Uhh... So i need to prepare then :))) -- Uladzislau Rezki