Re: [RFC] reduce hugetlb_instantiation_mutex usage

Andrew Morton
2006-10-27T03:35:22Z

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:11:56 +1000
"'David Gibson'" <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 05:04:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:31:37 +1000
> > "'David Gibson'" <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:44:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:17:20 -0700
> > > > "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > First rev of patch to allow hugetlb page fault to scale.
> > > > >
> > > > > hugetlb_instantiation_mutex was introduced to prevent spurious allocation
> > > > > failure in a corner case: two threads race to instantiate same page with
> > > > > only one free page left in the global pool. However, this global
> > > > > serialization hurts fault performance badly as noted by Christoph Lameter.
> > > > > This patch attempt to cut back the use of mutex only when free page resource
> > > > > is limited, thus allow fault to scale in most common cases.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ug.
> > > >
> > > > How about we kill that instantiation_mutex thing altogether and fix
> > > > the original bug in a better fashion? Like...
> > > >
> > > > In hugetlb_no_page():
> > > >
> > > > retry:
> > > > page = find_lock_page(...)
> > > > if (!page) {
> > > > write_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > > > if (radix_tree_lookup(...)) {
> > > > write_unlock_irq(tree_lock);
> > > > goto retry;
> > > > }
> > > > page = alloc_huge_page(...);
> > > > if (!page)
> > > > bail;
> > > > radix_tree_insert(...);
> > > > SetPageLocked(page);
> > > > write_unlock_irq(tree_lock);
> > > > clear_huge_page(...);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > <stick it in page tables>
> > > >
> > > > unlock_page(page);
> > > >
> > > > The key points:
> > > >
> > > > - Use tree_lock to prevent the race
> > > >
> > > > - allocate the hugepage inside tree_lock so we never get into this
> > > > two-threads-tried-to-allocate-the-final-page problem.
> > > >
> > > > - The hugepage is zeroed without locks held, under lock_page()
> > > >
> > > > - lock_page() is used to make the other thread(s) sleep while the winner
> > > > thread is zeroing out the page.
> > > >
> > > > It means that rather a lot of add_to_page_cache() will need to be copied
> > > > into hugetlb_no_page().
> > >
> > > This handles the case of processes racing on a shared mapping, but not
> > > the case of threads racing on a private mapping. In the latter case
> > > the race ends at the set_pte() rather than the add_to_page_cache()
> > > (well, strictly with the whole page_table_lock atomic lump). And we
> > > can't move the clear after the set_pte() :(.
> > >
> >
> > I expect we can do a similar thing, using page_table_lock to prevent the
> > race.
> >
> > The key is to be able to make racing threads still block on the page lock.
> > Perhaps install a temp pte which is !pte_present() and also !pte_none().
> > So the racing thread can use that pte to locate and wait upon the
> > presently-locked page while it is being COWed by another CPU.
>
> Um.. yes, that might work. Though I'd need to think hard about a more
> specific scheme. I've been through a lot of approaches lately that
> looked ok at first glance, but weren't :-/
>
> And obviously we'd need to make sure such "tentative" PTEs are
> constructible won't confuse other code on each relevant architecture.
>

There's various cross-arch infrastructure for this which is used for
encoding swap offsets within pte's which could perhaps be ab^W^Wreused.

Alternatively, we could put the page into pagecache whether or not the
mapping is MAP_SHARED. Then pull it out again prior to unlocking it if
it's MAP_PRIVATE. So we're using pagecache just as a way for the
concurrent faulter to locate the page.