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

Huang Shijie
2026-04-16T11:48:33Z

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 12:29:50PM +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:11 AM Huang Shijie <huangsj@hygon.cn> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
> > IMHO, when the number of VMAs in the i_mmap is very large, only optimise the rwsem
> > lock does not help too much for our NUMA case.
> >
> > In our NUMA server, the remote access could be the major issue.
> >
>
> I'm confused how this is not supposed to help. You moved your data to
> be stored per-domain. With my proposal the lock itself will also get
> that treatment.
>
> Modulo the issue of what to do with code wanting to iterate the entire
> thing, this is blatantly faster.
>

I tested an old lock patch yesterday. It really helps a lot.
The lock patch is from this link:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2024/9/14/280

The test results:
v7.0-rc5 + (lock patch) : improve about %60%
v7.0-rc5 + (lock patch) + (this patch set) : improve about 130%

> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Yes, this patch set only focus on the NUMA case.
> > The one-node case should use the original i_mmap.
> >
> > Maybe I can add a new config, CONFIG_SPILT_I_MMAP. The config is disabled
> > by default, and enabled when the NUMA node is not one.
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> > Yes.
> >
> > The traversal may need to hold many locks.
> >
>
> The very paragraph you partially quoted answers what to do in that
> case: wrap everything with a new rwsem taken for reading when
> adding/removing entries and taken for writing when iterating the
> entire thing. Then the iteration sticks to one lock.
>
> The new rw lock puts an upper ceiling on scalability of the thing, but
> it is way higher than the current state.
Could you tell me the patch about it?
Is this lock patch merged ? or not?

I can test it.

>
> Given the extra overhead associated with it one could consider
> sticking to one centralized state by default and switching to
> distributed state if there is enough contention.
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > So my non-maintainer opinion is that the patchset is not worth it as it
> > > fails to address anything for significantly more common and already
> > > affected setups.
> > This patch set is to reduce the remote access latency for insert/remove VMA
> > in NUMA.
> >
>
> And I am saying the mmap semaphore is a significant problem already on
> high-core no-numa setups. Addressing scalability in that case would
> sort out the problem in your setup and to a significantly higher
> extent.
I am afraid even the lock patch resolves the scalability high-core no-numa setups,
we still need to split the i_mmap for NUMA.

>
> > >
> > > Have you looked into splitting the lock?
> > >
> > I ever tried.
> >
> > But there are two disadvantages:
> > 1.) The traversal may need to hold many locks which makes the
> > code very horrible.
> >
>
> I already above this is avoidable.
>
> > 2.) Even we split the locks. Each lock protects a tree, when the tree becomes
> > big enough, the VMA insert/remove will also become slow in NUMA.
> > The reason is that the tree has VMAs in different NUMA nodes.
> >
>
> This is orthogonal to my proposal. In fact, if one is to pretend this
> is never a factor with your patch, I would like to point out it will
> remain not a factor if the per-numa struct gets its own lock.
Yes. It is orthogonal to your proposal.

Thanks
Huang Shijie