[RFC] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[RFC] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Nathan Zimmer]

When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.

To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.

I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
over 90%.

To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
around 2%.

Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
---
 include/linux/mempolicy.h |  2 +-
 mm/mempolicy.c            | 16 ++++++++--------
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
index 3d385c8..2696c1f 100644
--- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct sp_node {
 
 struct shared_policy {
 	struct rb_root root;
-	spinlock_t lock;
+	rwlock_t lock;
 };
 
 int vma_dup_policy(struct vm_area_struct *src, struct vm_area_struct *dst);
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 87a1779..ebf82a3 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2211,13 +2211,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
 
 	if (!sp->root.rb_node)
 		return NULL;
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	read_lock(&sp->lock);
 	sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
 	if (sn) {
 		mpol_get(sn->policy);
 		pol = sn->policy;
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	read_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	return pol;
 }
 
@@ -2360,7 +2360,7 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 	int ret = 0;
 
 restart:
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	write_lock(&sp->lock);
 	n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end);
 	/* Take care of old policies in the same range. */
 	while (n && n->start < end) {
@@ -2393,7 +2393,7 @@ restart:
 	}
 	if (new)
 		sp_insert(sp, new);
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	write_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	ret = 0;
 
 err_out:
@@ -2405,7 +2405,7 @@ err_out:
 	return ret;
 
 alloc_new:
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	write_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	ret = -ENOMEM;
 	n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!n_new)
@@ -2431,7 +2431,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
 	int ret;
 
 	sp->root = RB_ROOT;		/* empty tree == default mempolicy */
-	spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
+	rwlock_init(&sp->lock);
 
 	if (mpol) {
 		struct vm_area_struct pvma;
@@ -2497,14 +2497,14 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
 
 	if (!p->root.rb_node)
 		return;
-	spin_lock(&p->lock);
+	write_lock(&p->lock);
 	next = rb_first(&p->root);
 	while (next) {
 		n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
 		next = rb_next(&n->nd);
 		sp_delete(p, n);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&p->lock);
+	write_unlock(&p->lock);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
-- 
1.8.2.1

--
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>

Re: [RFC] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2015, Nathan Zimmer wrote:

> When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
> that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
> The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
> down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.
> 
> To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
> We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
> copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
> This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
> since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.
> 
> I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
> starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
> threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
> For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
> ~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
> over 90%.
> 
> To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
> rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
> The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
> around 2%.
> 

There're a couple of places in the sp_lookup() comment that would need to 
be fixed to either correct that this is no longer a spinlock and that the 
caller must hold the read lock.  The comment for sp_insert() would have to 
be fixed to specify the caller must hold the write lock.  When that's 
fixed, feel free to add

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>

--
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>

[PATCH] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Nathan Zimmer]

When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.

To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.

I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
over 90%.

To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
around 2%.

Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
---
 fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c      |  2 +-
 include/linux/mempolicy.h |  2 +-
 mm/mempolicy.c            | 20 ++++++++++----------
 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
index 316adb9..ab7b155 100644
--- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
@@ -739,7 +739,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
 		/*
 		 * The policy is initialized here even if we are creating a
 		 * private inode because initialization simply creates an
-		 * an empty rb tree and calls spin_lock_init(), later when we
+		 * an empty rb tree and calls rwlock_init(), later when we
 		 * call mpol_free_shared_policy() it will just return because
 		 * the rb tree will still be empty.
 		 */
diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
index 3d385c8..2696c1f 100644
--- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ struct sp_node {
 
 struct shared_policy {
 	struct rb_root root;
-	spinlock_t lock;
+	rwlock_t lock;
 };
 
 int vma_dup_policy(struct vm_area_struct *src, struct vm_area_struct *dst);
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 87a1779..197d917 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2142,7 +2142,7 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
  *
  * Remember policies even when nobody has shared memory mapped.
  * The policies are kept in Red-Black tree linked from the inode.
- * They are protected by the sp->lock spinlock, which should be held
+ * They are protected by the sp->lock rwlock, which should be held
  * for any accesses to the tree.
  */
 
@@ -2179,7 +2179,7 @@ sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 }
 
 /* Insert a new shared policy into the list. */
-/* Caller holds sp->lock */
+/* Caller holds the write of sp->lock */
 static void sp_insert(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *new)
 {
 	struct rb_node **p = &sp->root.rb_node;
@@ -2211,13 +2211,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
 
 	if (!sp->root.rb_node)
 		return NULL;
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	read_lock(&sp->lock);
 	sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
 	if (sn) {
 		mpol_get(sn->policy);
 		pol = sn->policy;
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	read_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	return pol;
 }
 
@@ -2360,7 +2360,7 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 	int ret = 0;
 
 restart:
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	write_lock(&sp->lock);
 	n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end);
 	/* Take care of old policies in the same range. */
 	while (n && n->start < end) {
@@ -2393,7 +2393,7 @@ restart:
 	}
 	if (new)
 		sp_insert(sp, new);
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	write_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	ret = 0;
 
 err_out:
@@ -2405,7 +2405,7 @@ err_out:
 	return ret;
 
 alloc_new:
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	write_unlock(&sp->lock);
 	ret = -ENOMEM;
 	n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!n_new)
@@ -2431,7 +2431,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
 	int ret;
 
 	sp->root = RB_ROOT;		/* empty tree == default mempolicy */
-	spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
+	rwlock_init(&sp->lock);
 
 	if (mpol) {
 		struct vm_area_struct pvma;
@@ -2497,14 +2497,14 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
 
 	if (!p->root.rb_node)
 		return;
-	spin_lock(&p->lock);
+	write_lock(&p->lock);
 	next = rb_first(&p->root);
 	while (next) {
 		n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
 		next = rb_next(&n->nd);
 		sp_delete(p, n);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&p->lock);
+	write_unlock(&p->lock);
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
-- 
1.8.2.1

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/17/2015 05:17 PM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
> that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
> The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
> down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.
> 
> To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
> We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
> copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
> This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
> since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.
> 
> I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
> starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
> threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
> For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
> ~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
> over 90%.
> 
> To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
> rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
> The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
> around 2%.

At first glance it seems that RCU would be a good fit here and achieve even
better lookup scalability, have you considered it?

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Nathan Zimmer]

On 11/18/2015 07:50 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 05:17 PM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>> When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
>> that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
>> The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
>> down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.
>>
>> To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
>> We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
>> copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
>> This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
>> since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.
>>
>> I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
>> starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
>> threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
>> For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
>> ~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
>> over 90%.
>>
>> To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
>> rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
>> The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
>> around 2%.
> At first glance it seems that RCU would be a good fit here and achieve even
> better lookup scalability, have you considered it?
>

Originally that was my plan but when I saw how good the results were
with the rwlock, I chickened out and took the less prone to mistakes way.

I should also note that the 2% time left in system is not from this lookup
but another area.

Nate

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/18/2015 09:05 PM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
>
>
> On 11/18/2015 07:50 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> At first glance it seems that RCU would be a good fit here and achieve even
>> better lookup scalability, have you considered it?
>>
>
> Originally that was my plan but when I saw how good the results were
> with the rwlock, I chickened out and took the less prone to mistakes way.
>
> I should also note that the 2% time left in system is not from this lookup
> but another area.

Ah, I see, thanks!
Vlastimil

> Nate
>

--
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>

Re: [PATCH] mempolicy: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 11/17/2015 05:17 PM, Nathan Zimmer wrote:
> When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was noticed
> that the system was spending lots of time in mpol_shared_policy_lookup.
> The gamess benchmark can also show it and is what I mostly used to chase
> down the issue since the setup for that I found a easier.
>
> To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O reqruirements.
> We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
> copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides.
> This results in us hitting a bottle neck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup
> since lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.
>
> I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes.  The problem
> starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse until it
> threatens to livelock once it gets large enough.
> For example on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only
> ~1% of time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is
> over 90%.
>
> To alleviate the contention on this area I converted the spinslock to a
> rwlock.  This allows the large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
> The results were quite good reducing this to consumtion at max ranks to
> around 2%.
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>

--
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>