* [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] fadivse volatile & range tree (v5) @ 2012-03-21 4:15 John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags John Stultz 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-21 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V Just another quick iteration here trying to address some of the comments made on my last patchset. I've merged most of the easy fixes and feedback in. Also I've improved the volatile range coalescing/removing code to avoid re-starting lookups every time from the root node. We also avoid coalescing with neighboring ranges that have been purged. Although since we coalesce overlapping purged ranges, there are still some semantics to work out there (ie: do we immediately zap the newly volatile range if we coalesce w/ a purged range? or break it into smaller un-purged sub-ranges?). I haven't yet been able to really digest the prio_tree code, that Dmitry suggested, but it seem like it might be applicable here. One issue there is that the start,last tuples are longs, so changes there might be necessary to handle 64bit file ranges. We'll see. Also, I still want to try implementing DaveC's suggested radix tree tag method. It would be significantly different from this, so I wanted to get all the feedback for this "branch" of investigation merged and published, so I can come back to it if the radix tree tag idea doesn't pan out. Thanks again for all the great feedback! -john CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> John Stultz (2): [RFC] Range tree implementation [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags fs/inode.c | 4 + include/linux/fadvise.h | 5 + include/linux/fs.h | 2 + include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++++ include/linux/volatile.h | 14 ++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 124 ++++++++++++++++ mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/fadvise.c | 16 ++- mm/volatile.c | 342 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 10 files changed, 564 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 include/linux/volatile.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c create mode 100644 mm/volatile.c -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-03-21 4:15 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] fadivse volatile & range tree (v5) John Stultz @ 2012-03-21 4:15 ` John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags John Stultz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-21 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do let me know if you have a better name. The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, and that has lots of memory ownership issues. So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to find overlapping and adjacent ranges. Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced impelementation may make it possible. Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for better ways to do the same. Changelog: v2: * Reworked code to use an rbtree instead of splaying v3: * Added range_tree_next_in_range() to avoid having to start lookups from the root every time. * Fixed some comments and return NULL instead of 0, as suggested by Aneesh Kumar K.V CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 181 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c diff --git a/include/linux/rangetree.h b/include/linux/rangetree.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c61ce7c --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/rangetree.h @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGETREE_H +#define _LINUX_RANGETREE_H + +#include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/rbtree.h> + +struct range_tree_node { + struct rb_node rb; + u64 start; + u64 end; +}; + +struct range_tree_root { + struct rb_root head; +}; + +static inline void range_tree_init(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + root->head = RB_ROOT; +} + +static inline void range_tree_node_init(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + rb_init_node(&node->rb); + node->start = 0; + node->end = 0; +} + +static inline int range_tree_empty(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&root->head); +} + +static inline +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_root_node(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *ret; + ret = container_of(root->head.rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + return ret; +} + +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range( + struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +extern void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +#endif + + diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 18515f0..f43ef0d 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \ sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \ proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ - is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o + is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o rangetree.o lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o diff --git a/lib/rangetree.c b/lib/rangetree.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a42b28e --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/rangetree.c @@ -0,0 +1,124 @@ +#include <linux/rangetree.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the + * given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (*p) { + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end < candidate->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end) + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + + return NULL; +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range_adjacent - Returns the first node that overlaps or + * is adjacent with the given range. + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (*p) { + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end+1 < candidate->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end + 1) + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + return NULL; +} + +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range(struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *next; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + if (!node) + return NULL; + next = rb_next(&node->rb); + if (!next) + return NULL; + + candidate = container_of(next, struct range_tree_node, rb); + + if ((candidate->start > end) || (candidate->end < start)) + return NULL; + + return candidate; +} + +/** + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree + * @root: range tree to be added to + * @node: range_tree_node to be added + * + * Adds a node to the range tree. + */ +void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct rb_node *parent = NULL; + struct range_tree_node *ptr; + + WARN_ON_ONCE(!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + while (*p) { + parent = *p; + ptr = rb_entry(parent, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (node->start < ptr->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + } + rb_link_node(&node->rb, parent, p); + rb_insert_color(&node->rb, &root->head); + +} + + +/** + * range_tree_remove: Removes a given node from the tree + * @root: root of tree + * @node: Node to be removed + * + * Removes a node and splays the tree + */ +void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + WARN_ON_ONCE(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + rb_erase(&node->rb, &root->head); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&node->rb); +} -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags 2012-03-21 4:15 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] fadivse volatile & range tree (v5) John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz @ 2012-03-21 4:15 ` John Stultz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-21 4:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V This patch provides new fadvise flags that can be used to mark file pages as volatile, which will allow it to be discarded if the kernel wants to reclaim memory. This is useful for userspace to allocate things like caches, and lets the kernel destructively (but safely) reclaim them when there's memory pressure. It's different from FADV_DONTNEED since the pages are not immediately discarded; they are only discarded under pressure. This is very much influenced by the Android Ashmem interface by Robert Love so credits to him and the Android developers. In many cases the code & logic come directly from the ashmem patch. The intent of this patch is to allow for ashmem-like behavior, but embeds the idea a little deeper into the VM code, instead of isolating it into a specific driver. I'm very much a newbie at the VM code, so At this point, I just want to try to get some input on the patch, so if you have another idea for using something other then fadvise, or other thoughts on how the volatile ranges are stored, I'd be really interested in hearing them. So let me know if you have any comments for feedback! Also many thanks to Dave Hansen who helped design and develop the initial version of this patch, and has provided continued review and mentoring for me in the VM code. v2: * After the valid critique that just dropping pages would poke holes in volatile ranges, and instead we should zap an entire range if we drop any of it, I changed the code to more closely mimic the ashmem implementation, which zaps entire ranges via a shrinker using an lru list that tracks which range has been marked volatile the longest. v3: * Reworked to use range tree implementation. v4: * Renamed functions to avoid confusion. * More consistant PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT usage, suggested by Dmitry Adamushko * Fixes exit without unlocking issue found by Dmitry Adamushko * Migrate to rbtree based rangetree implementation * Simplified locking to use global lock (we were grabbing global lru lock every time anyway). * Avoid ENOMEM isses by allocating before we get into complicated code. * Add some documentation to the volatile.c file from Neil Brown v5: * More fixes suggested by Dmitry Adamushko * Improve range colescing so that we don't coalesce neighboring purged ranges. * Utilize range_tree_next_in_range to avoid doing every lookup from the tree's root. Known issues: * We still coalesce with overlapping ranges, need to figure out best way to handle purged state. * Lockdep doesn't like calling vmtruncate_range() from a shrinker. Any help here on how to address this would be appreciated. I've tried switching to invalidate_inode_pages2_range, but that always returns EBUSY in my testing, and I don't really want to launder dirty pages, instead I want to zap them. * Concern over bloating the address_space struct CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> fadvise volatile fixes from Dmitry Right after sending this I realized I had forgotten to include some fixes for issues Dmitry pointed out. So I've included them here. Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> another fix from demitry Handle coalescing in a slightly smarter way use range_tree_nexT_in_range --- fs/inode.c | 4 + include/linux/fadvise.h | 5 + include/linux/fs.h | 2 + include/linux/volatile.h | 14 ++ mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/fadvise.c | 16 ++- mm/volatile.c | 342 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 383 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/volatile.h create mode 100644 mm/volatile.c diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c index d3ebdbe..f602dc2 100644 --- a/fs/inode.c +++ b/fs/inode.c @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ #include <linux/cred.h> #include <linux/buffer_head.h> /* for inode_has_buffers */ #include <linux/ratelimit.h> +#include <linux/volatile.h> #include "internal.h" /* @@ -254,6 +255,7 @@ void __destroy_inode(struct inode *inode) if (inode->i_default_acl && inode->i_default_acl != ACL_NOT_CACHED) posix_acl_release(inode->i_default_acl); #endif + mapping_clear_volatile_ranges(&inode->i_data); this_cpu_dec(nr_inodes); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(__destroy_inode); @@ -360,6 +362,8 @@ void address_space_init_once(struct address_space *mapping) spin_lock_init(&mapping->private_lock); INIT_RAW_PRIO_TREE_ROOT(&mapping->i_mmap); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&mapping->i_mmap_nonlinear); + range_tree_init(&mapping->volatile_root); + } EXPORT_SYMBOL(address_space_init_once); diff --git a/include/linux/fadvise.h b/include/linux/fadvise.h index e8e7471..443951c 100644 --- a/include/linux/fadvise.h +++ b/include/linux/fadvise.h @@ -18,4 +18,9 @@ #define POSIX_FADV_NOREUSE 5 /* Data will be accessed once. */ #endif +#define POSIX_FADV_VOLATILE 8 /* _can_ toss, but don't toss now */ +#define POSIX_FADV_NONVOLATILE 9 /* Remove VOLATILE flag */ + + + #endif /* FADVISE_H_INCLUDED */ diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 69cd5bb..2e20be1 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ #include <linux/ioctl.h> #include <linux/blk_types.h> #include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/rangetree.h> /* * It's silly to have NR_OPEN bigger than NR_FILE, but you can change @@ -655,6 +656,7 @@ struct address_space { spinlock_t private_lock; /* for use by the address_space */ struct list_head private_list; /* ditto */ struct address_space *assoc_mapping; /* ditto */ + struct range_tree_root volatile_root; /* volatile range list */ } __attribute__((aligned(sizeof(long)))); /* * On most architectures that alignment is already the case; but diff --git a/include/linux/volatile.h b/include/linux/volatile.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..5460d7b --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/volatile.h @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_VOLATILE_H +#define _LINUX_VOLATILE_H + +#include <linux/fs.h> + +extern long mapping_range_volatile(struct address_space *mapping, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index); +extern long mapping_range_nonvolatile(struct address_space *mapping, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index); +extern long mapping_range_isvolatile(struct address_space *mapping, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index); +extern void mapping_clear_volatile_ranges(struct address_space *mapping); + +#endif /* _LINUX_VOLATILE_H */ diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile index 50ec00e..7b6c7a8 100644 --- a/mm/Makefile +++ b/mm/Makefile @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ obj-y := filemap.o mempool.o oom_kill.o fadvise.o \ readahead.o swap.o truncate.o vmscan.o shmem.o \ prio_tree.o util.o mmzone.o vmstat.o backing-dev.o \ page_isolation.o mm_init.o mmu_context.o percpu.o \ - $(mmu-y) + volatile.o $(mmu-y) obj-y += init-mm.o ifdef CONFIG_NO_BOOTMEM diff --git a/mm/fadvise.c b/mm/fadvise.c index 469491e0..3e33845 100644 --- a/mm/fadvise.c +++ b/mm/fadvise.c @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ #include <linux/fadvise.h> #include <linux/writeback.h> #include <linux/syscalls.h> +#include <linux/volatile.h> #include <asm/unistd.h> @@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE(fadvise64_64)(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int advice) nrpages = end_index - start_index + 1; if (!nrpages) nrpages = ~0UL; - + ret = force_page_cache_readahead(mapping, file, start_index, nrpages); @@ -128,6 +129,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE(fadvise64_64)(int fd, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int advice) invalidate_mapping_pages(mapping, start_index, end_index); break; + case POSIX_FADV_VOLATILE: + /* First and last PARTIAL page! */ + start_index = offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + end_index = endbyte >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + ret = mapping_range_volatile(mapping, start_index, end_index); + break; + case POSIX_FADV_NONVOLATILE: + /* First and last PARTIAL page! */ + start_index = offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + end_index = endbyte >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + ret = mapping_range_nonvolatile(mapping, start_index, + end_index); + break; default: ret = -EINVAL; } diff --git a/mm/volatile.c b/mm/volatile.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..85d5ece --- /dev/null +++ b/mm/volatile.c @@ -0,0 +1,342 @@ +/* mm/volatile.c + * + * Volatile page range managment. + * Copyright 2011 Linaro + * + * Based on mm/ashmem.c + * by Robert Love <rlove@google.com> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Google, Inc. + * + * + * This software is licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public + * License version 2, as published by the Free Software Foundation, and + * may be copied, distributed, and modified under those terms. + * + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the + * GNU General Public License for more details. + * + * + * The goal behind volatile ranges is to allow applications to interact + * with the kernel's cache management infrastructure. In particular an + * application can say "this memory contains data that might be useful in + * the future, but can be reconstructed if necessary, so if the kernel + * needs, it can zap and reclaim this memory without having to swap it out. + * + * The proposed mechanism - at a high level - is for user-space to be able + * to say "This memory is volatile" and then later "this memory is no longer + * volatile". If the content of the memory is still available the second + * request succeeds. If not, the memory is marked non-volatile and an + * error is returned to denote that the contents have been lost. + * + * Credits to Neil Brown for the above description. + * + */ + +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/fs.h> +#include <linux/mm.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/pagemap.h> +#include <linux/volatile.h> + +static DEFINE_MUTEX(volatile_mutex); + +struct volatile_range { + struct list_head lru; + struct range_tree_node range_node; + + unsigned int purged; + struct address_space *mapping; +}; + +/* LRU list of volatile page ranges */ +static LIST_HEAD(volatile_lru_list); + +/* Count of pages on our LRU list */ +static u64 lru_count; + + +static inline u64 range_size(struct volatile_range *range) +{ + return range->range_node.end - range->range_node.start + 1; +} + +static inline void lru_add(struct volatile_range *range) +{ + list_add_tail(&range->lru, &volatile_lru_list); + lru_count += range_size(range); +} + +static inline void lru_del(struct volatile_range *range) +{ + list_del(&range->lru); + lru_count -= range_size(range); +} + +#define range_on_lru(range) (!(range)->purged) + + +static inline void volatile_range_resize(struct volatile_range *range, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index) +{ + size_t pre = range_size(range); + + range->range_node.start = start_index; + range->range_node.end = end_index; + + if (range_on_lru(range)) + lru_count -= pre - range_size(range); +} + +static struct volatile_range *vrange_alloc(void) +{ + struct volatile_range *new; + + new = kzalloc(sizeof(struct volatile_range), GFP_KERNEL); + if (!new) + return 0; + range_tree_node_init(&new->range_node); + return new; +} + +static void vrange_del(struct volatile_range *vrange) +{ + struct address_space *mapping; + mapping = vrange->mapping; + + if (range_on_lru(vrange)) + lru_del(vrange); + range_tree_remove(&mapping->volatile_root, &vrange->range_node); + kfree(vrange); +} + + + +/* + * Mark a region as volatile, allowing dirty pages to be purged + * under memory pressure + */ +long mapping_range_volatile(struct address_space *mapping, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index) +{ + struct volatile_range *new; + struct range_tree_node *node; + struct volatile_range *vrange; + + u64 start, end; + int purged = 0; + start = (u64)start_index; + end = (u64)end_index; + + new = vrange_alloc(); + if (!new) + return -ENOMEM; + + mutex_lock(&volatile_mutex); + + /* Find any existing ranges that overlap */ + node = range_tree_in_range(&mapping->volatile_root, start, end); + while (node) { + /* Already entirely marked volatile, so we're done */ + if (node->start < start && node->end > end) { + /* don't need the allocated value */ + kfree(new); + goto out; + } + + /* Grab containing volatile range */ + vrange = container_of(node, struct volatile_range, range_node); + + /* resize range */ + start = min_t(u64, start, node->start); + end = max_t(u64, end, node->end); + purged |= vrange->purged; + + node = range_tree_next_in_range(&vrange->range_node, + start, end); + vrange_del(vrange); + } + + /* Coalesce unpurged left-adjacent ranges */ + node = range_tree_in_range(&mapping->volatile_root, start-1, start); + if (node) { + vrange = container_of(node, struct volatile_range, range_node); + if (!vrange->purged) { + /* resize range */ + start = min_t(u64, start, node->start); + end = max_t(u64, end, node->end); + vrange_del(vrange); + } + } + + /* Coalesce unpurged right-adjacent ranges */ + node = range_tree_in_range(&mapping->volatile_root, end, end+1); + if (node) { + vrange = container_of(node, struct volatile_range, range_node); + if (!vrange->purged) { + /* resize range */ + start = min_t(u64, start, node->start); + end = max_t(u64, end, node->end); + vrange_del(vrange); + } + } + + new->mapping = mapping; + new->range_node.start = start; + new->range_node.end = end; + new->purged = purged; + + range_tree_add(&mapping->volatile_root, &new->range_node); + if (range_on_lru(new)) + lru_add(new); + +out: + mutex_unlock(&volatile_mutex); + + return 0; +} + +/* + * Mark a region as nonvolatile, returns 1 if any pages in the region + * were purged. + */ +long mapping_range_nonvolatile(struct address_space *mapping, + pgoff_t start_index, pgoff_t end_index) +{ + struct volatile_range *new; + struct range_tree_node *node; + int ret = 0; + u64 start, end; + int used_new = 0; + + start = (u64)start_index; + end = (u64)end_index; + + /* create new node */ + new = vrange_alloc(); + if (!new) + return -ENOMEM; + + mutex_lock(&volatile_mutex); + node = range_tree_in_range(&mapping->volatile_root, start, end); + while (node) { + struct volatile_range *vrange; + vrange = container_of(node, struct volatile_range, range_node); + + ret |= vrange->purged; + + if (start <= node->start && end >= node->end) { + /* delete: volatile range is totally within range */ + node = range_tree_next_in_range(&vrange->range_node, + start, end); + vrange_del(vrange); + } else if (node->start >= start) { + /* resize: volatile range right-overlaps range */ + volatile_range_resize(vrange, end+1, node->end); + node = range_tree_next_in_range(&vrange->range_node, + start, end); + + } else if (node->end <= end) { + /* resize: volatile range left-overlaps range */ + volatile_range_resize(vrange, node->start, start-1); + node = range_tree_next_in_range(&vrange->range_node, + start, end); + } else { + /* split: range is totally within a volatile range */ + used_new = 1; /* we only do this once */ + new->mapping = mapping; + new->range_node.start = end + 1; + new->range_node.end = node->end; + new->purged = vrange->purged; + range_tree_add(&mapping->volatile_root, + &new->range_node); + if (range_on_lru(new)) + lru_add(new); + volatile_range_resize(vrange, node->start, start-1); + + break; + } + } + mutex_unlock(&volatile_mutex); + + if (!used_new) + kfree(new); + + return ret; +} + + +/* + * Cleans up any volatile ranges. + */ +void mapping_clear_volatile_ranges(struct address_space *mapping) +{ + struct volatile_range *tozap; + + mutex_lock(&volatile_mutex); + while (!range_tree_empty(&mapping->volatile_root)) { + struct range_tree_node *tmp; + tmp = range_tree_root_node(&mapping->volatile_root); + tozap = container_of(tmp, struct volatile_range, range_node); + vrange_del(tozap); + + } + mutex_unlock(&volatile_mutex); +} + +/* + * Purges volatile ranges when under memory pressure + */ +static int volatile_shrink(struct shrinker *ignored, struct shrink_control *sc) +{ + struct volatile_range *range, *next; + s64 nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan; + const gfp_t gfp_mask = sc->gfp_mask; + + if (nr_to_scan && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) + return -1; + if (!nr_to_scan) + return lru_count; + + mutex_lock(&volatile_mutex); + list_for_each_entry_safe(range, next, &volatile_lru_list, lru) { + struct inode *inode; + loff_t start, end; + + inode = range->mapping->host; + + start = range->range_node.start << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + end = ((range->range_node.end + 1) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) - 1; + + /* + * XXX - calling vmtruncate_range from a shrinker causes + * lockdep warnings. Revisit this! + */ + if (!vmtruncate_range(inode, start, end)) { + lru_del(range); + range->purged = 1; + nr_to_scan -= range_size(range); + } + + if (nr_to_scan <= 0) + break; + } + mutex_unlock(&volatile_mutex); + + return lru_count; +} + +static struct shrinker volatile_shrinker = { + .shrink = volatile_shrink, + .seeks = DEFAULT_SEEKS, +}; + +static int __init volatile_init(void) +{ + register_shrinker(&volatile_shrinker); + return 0; +} + +arch_initcall(volatile_init); -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Volatile Ranges (v7) @ 2012-04-14 1:07 John Stultz 2012-04-14 1:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-04-14 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V Another week, another volatile range patch iteration. So I think this is starting to shape up, and given the muted response to the last few iterations, next time I may need to drop the RFC to scare folks into taking a serious look at this. This round tries to address the outstanding lockdep issue of calling vmtruncate_range form a shrinker. My solution here is to call shmem_truncate_range directly, which results in this functionality being a tmpfs only feature for now. I know there was some concern over using a generic fadvise interface for a tmpfs only feature, and while I'd like this to be more generic, it may really only make sense for tmpfs files. Also the MADV_REMOVE interface provides similar effective tmpfs only (well, nilfs2 supports it too) precedent. Thoughts here about what would be the most appropriate interface would be appreciated (does madvise make more sense for tmpfs only?). Also I reworked the code so the volatile ranges won't persist if all the fds have been closed. I think this avoids possible surprising effects of volatile pages if they were allowed to persist across multiple non-concurrent opens. Finally Dmitry Adamushko pointed out a race and some other minor fixes that I corrected. As always, your feedback is greatly appreciated. thanks -john CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> John Stultz (2): [RFC] Range tree implementation [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags fs/file_table.c | 4 + include/linux/fadvise.h | 5 + include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++ include/linux/volatile.h | 12 ++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 128 +++++++++++++ mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/fadvise.c | 16 ++- mm/volatile.c | 457 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 9 files changed, 679 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 include/linux/volatile.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c create mode 100644 mm/volatile.c -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-04-14 1:07 [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Volatile Ranges (v7) John Stultz @ 2012-04-14 1:08 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-04-14 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do let me know if you have a better name. The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, and that has lots of memory ownership issues. So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to find overlapping and adjacent ranges. Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced impelementation may make it possible. Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for better ways to do the same. Changelog: v2: * Reworked code to use an rbtree instead of splaying v3: * Added range_tree_next_in_range() to avoid having to start lookups from the root every time. * Fixed some comments and return NULL instead of 0, as suggested by Aneesh Kumar K.V v6: * Fixed range_tree_in_range() so that it finds the earliest range, rather then the first. This allows the next_in_range() function to properly cover all the ranges in the tree. * Minor clenaups to simplify some of the functions CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c diff --git a/include/linux/rangetree.h b/include/linux/rangetree.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c61ce7c --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/rangetree.h @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGETREE_H +#define _LINUX_RANGETREE_H + +#include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/rbtree.h> + +struct range_tree_node { + struct rb_node rb; + u64 start; + u64 end; +}; + +struct range_tree_root { + struct rb_root head; +}; + +static inline void range_tree_init(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + root->head = RB_ROOT; +} + +static inline void range_tree_node_init(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + rb_init_node(&node->rb); + node->start = 0; + node->end = 0; +} + +static inline int range_tree_empty(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&root->head); +} + +static inline +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_root_node(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *ret; + ret = container_of(root->head.rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + return ret; +} + +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range( + struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +extern void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +#endif + + diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 18515f0..f43ef0d 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \ sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \ proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ - is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o + is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o rangetree.o lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o diff --git a/lib/rangetree.c b/lib/rangetree.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..08185bc --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/rangetree.c @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +#include <linux/rangetree.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the + * given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *p = root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate, *match = NULL; + + while (p) { + candidate = rb_entry(p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end < candidate->start) + p = p->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end) + p = p->rb_right; + else { + /* We found one, but try to find an earlier match */ + match = candidate; + p = p->rb_left; + } + } + + return match; +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range_adjacent - Returns the first node that overlaps or + * is adjacent with the given range. + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *p = root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (p) { + candidate = rb_entry(p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end+1 < candidate->start) + p = p->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end + 1) + p = p->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + return NULL; +} + +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range(struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *next; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + if (!node) + return NULL; + next = rb_next(&node->rb); + if (!next) + return NULL; + + candidate = container_of(next, struct range_tree_node, rb); + + if ((candidate->start > end) || (candidate->end < start)) + return NULL; + + return candidate; +} + +/** + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree + * @root: range tree to be added to + * @node: range_tree_node to be added + * + * Adds a node to the range tree. + */ +void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct rb_node *parent = NULL; + struct range_tree_node *ptr; + + WARN_ON_ONCE(!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + while (*p) { + parent = *p; + ptr = rb_entry(parent, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (node->start < ptr->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + } + rb_link_node(&node->rb, parent, p); + rb_insert_color(&node->rb, &root->head); + +} + + +/** + * range_tree_remove: Removes a given node from the tree + * @root: root of tree + * @node: Node to be removed + * + * Removes a node and splays the tree + */ +void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + WARN_ON_ONCE(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + rb_erase(&node->rb, &root->head); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&node->rb); +} -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile Ranges (v6) @ 2012-04-07 0:08 John Stultz 2012-04-07 0:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-04-07 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V Just wanted to send out another iteration of the volatile range code for review and comment. This revision handles some improved coalescing logic, fixes some bugs in the range tree management, and also utilizes a hash tabe to avoid bloating the address_space structure with range_tree pointers. Still looking for guidence on what a better interface for this might be as well as thoughts on how to best drop the ranges under memory pressure (vmtruncate_region is pretty close to what I want, but lockdep makes it clear that its not really safe to call from a shrinker). Another detail is that by hanging the volatile ranges off of the address_space, the volatility for tmpfs files persists even when no one has an open fd on the file. This could cause some surprises if application A marked some pages volatile and died, then application B opened the file and had pages dropped out underneith it while it was being used. I suspect I need to clean up the volatility when all fds are dropped. But any extra insight would be useful here. Thanks for the continued advice and feedback! -john CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> John Stultz (2): [RFC] Range tree implementation [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags fs/inode.c | 2 + include/linux/fadvise.h | 5 + include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++ include/linux/volatile.h | 14 ++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 128 +++++++++++++ mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/fadvise.c | 16 ++- mm/volatile.c | 440 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 9 files changed, 662 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 include/linux/volatile.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c create mode 100644 mm/volatile.c -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-04-07 0:08 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile Ranges (v6) John Stultz @ 2012-04-07 0:08 ` John Stultz 2012-04-07 17:36 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-04-07 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do let me know if you have a better name. The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, and that has lots of memory ownership issues. So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to find overlapping and adjacent ranges. Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced impelementation may make it possible. Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for better ways to do the same. Changelog: v2: * Reworked code to use an rbtree instead of splaying v3: * Added range_tree_next_in_range() to avoid having to start lookups from the root every time. * Fixed some comments and return NULL instead of 0, as suggested by Aneesh Kumar K.V v6: * Fixed range_tree_in_range() so that it finds the earliest range, rather then the first. This allows the next_in_range() function to properly cover all the ranges in the tree. * Minor clenaups to simplify some of the functions CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- include/linux/rangetree.h | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 185 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c diff --git a/include/linux/rangetree.h b/include/linux/rangetree.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c61ce7c --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/rangetree.h @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGETREE_H +#define _LINUX_RANGETREE_H + +#include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/rbtree.h> + +struct range_tree_node { + struct rb_node rb; + u64 start; + u64 end; +}; + +struct range_tree_root { + struct rb_root head; +}; + +static inline void range_tree_init(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + root->head = RB_ROOT; +} + +static inline void range_tree_node_init(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + rb_init_node(&node->rb); + node->start = 0; + node->end = 0; +} + +static inline int range_tree_empty(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&root->head); +} + +static inline +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_root_node(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *ret; + ret = container_of(root->head.rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + return ret; +} + +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range( + struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +extern void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +#endif + + diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 18515f0..f43ef0d 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \ sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \ proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ - is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o + is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o rangetree.o lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o diff --git a/lib/rangetree.c b/lib/rangetree.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..08185bc --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/rangetree.c @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +#include <linux/rangetree.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the + * given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *p = root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate, *match = NULL; + + while (p) { + candidate = rb_entry(p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end < candidate->start) + p = p->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end) + p = p->rb_right; + else { + /* We found one, but try to find an earlier match */ + match = candidate; + p = p->rb_left; + } + } + + return match; +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range_adjacent - Returns the first node that overlaps or + * is adjacent with the given range. + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *p = root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (p) { + candidate = rb_entry(p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end+1 < candidate->start) + p = p->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end + 1) + p = p->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + return NULL; +} + +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_next_in_range(struct range_tree_node *node, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node *next; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + if (!node) + return NULL; + next = rb_next(&node->rb); + if (!next) + return NULL; + + candidate = container_of(next, struct range_tree_node, rb); + + if ((candidate->start > end) || (candidate->end < start)) + return NULL; + + return candidate; +} + +/** + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree + * @root: range tree to be added to + * @node: range_tree_node to be added + * + * Adds a node to the range tree. + */ +void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct rb_node *parent = NULL; + struct range_tree_node *ptr; + + WARN_ON_ONCE(!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + while (*p) { + parent = *p; + ptr = rb_entry(parent, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (node->start < ptr->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + } + rb_link_node(&node->rb, parent, p); + rb_insert_color(&node->rb, &root->head); + +} + + +/** + * range_tree_remove: Removes a given node from the tree + * @root: root of tree + * @node: Node to be removed + * + * Removes a node and splays the tree + */ +void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + WARN_ON_ONCE(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + rb_erase(&node->rb, &root->head); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&node->rb); +} -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-04-07 0:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz @ 2012-04-07 17:36 ` Sasha Levin 2012-04-09 18:04 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2012-04-07 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V, Pekka Enberg, Ingo Molnar On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 2:08 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: > After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea > to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different > approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. > > I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I > couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees > and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do > let me know if you have a better name. > > The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number > of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a > large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. > When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an > existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it > very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as > the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, > and that has lots of memory ownership issues. > > So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like > implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node > to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the > merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to > find overlapping and adjacent ranges. > > Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be > resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not > totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile > ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced > impelementation may make it possible. > > Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for > better ways to do the same. Hi John, I have implemented an interval lookup tree using the augmented features of the in-kernel rbtree for the KVM tools project. We currently use it for several things as a framework code such as MMIO memory mapping. >From what I see in the patch, you haven't fully implemented the interval structure (it needs to keep track of additional parameters when building it, and the search is a bit different and is based on those parameters). I could send that code as a patch against the kernel tree if something like that is actually required for the kernel at this point. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-04-07 17:36 ` Sasha Levin @ 2012-04-09 18:04 ` John Stultz 2012-04-09 18:44 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-04-09 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Sasha Levin Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V, Pekka Enberg, Ingo Molnar On 04/07/2012 10:36 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 2:08 AM, John Stultz<john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: >> After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea >> to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different >> approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. >> >> I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I >> couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees >> and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do >> let me know if you have a better name. >> >> The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number >> of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a >> large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. >> When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an >> existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it >> very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as >> the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, >> and that has lots of memory ownership issues. >> >> So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like >> implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node >> to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the >> merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to >> find overlapping and adjacent ranges. >> >> Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be >> resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not >> totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile >> ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced >> impelementation may make it possible. >> >> Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for >> better ways to do the same. > Hi John, > > I have implemented an interval lookup tree using the augmented > features of the in-kernel rbtree for the KVM tools project. We > currently use it for several things as a framework code such as MMIO > memory mapping. > > From what I see in the patch, you haven't fully implemented the > interval structure (it needs to keep track of additional parameters > when building it, and the search is a bit different and is based on > those parameters). Any more details on whats missing/different? Or the pros/cons of the different approaches? > I could send that code as a patch against the kernel tree if something > like that is actually required for the kernel at this point. > Sure. I'm not married to this implementation (its just the only one so far that solves my needs - Dmitry already pointed out that the priotree might be close to sufficient, but I've not yet tried to adapt it), and whatever goes upstream needs to be generic enough to solve the related problems that a number of folks are all working on solving. So seeing your approach might be good too. thanks -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-04-09 18:04 ` John Stultz @ 2012-04-09 18:44 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2012-04-09 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V, Pekka Enberg, Ingo Molnar On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: > On 04/07/2012 10:36 AM, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 2:08 AM, John Stultz<john.stultz@linaro.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea >>> to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different >>> approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. >>> >>> I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I >>> couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees >>> and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do >>> let me know if you have a better name. >>> >>> The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number >>> of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a >>> large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. >>> When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an >>> existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it >>> very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as >>> the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, >>> and that has lots of memory ownership issues. >>> >>> So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like >>> implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node >>> to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the >>> merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to >>> find overlapping and adjacent ranges. >>> >>> Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be >>> resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not >>> totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile >>> ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced >>> impelementation may make it possible. >>> >>> Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for >>> better ways to do the same. >> >> Hi John, >> >> I have implemented an interval lookup tree using the augmented >> features of the in-kernel rbtree for the KVM tools project. We >> currently use it for several things as a framework code such as MMIO >> memory mapping. >> >> From what I see in the patch, you haven't fully implemented the >> interval structure (it needs to keep track of additional parameters >> when building it, and the search is a bit different and is based on >> those parameters). > > Any more details on whats missing/different? Or the pros/cons of the > different approaches? I took the implementation from 'Introduction to Algorithms', which called for keeping the max high all the nodes in each sub-tree in the root of that tree. I don't remember what stood behind that but I can look it up when I get back to the book :) >> I could send that code as a patch against the kernel tree if something >> like that is actually required for the kernel at this point. >> > Sure. I'm not married to this implementation (its just the only one so far > that solves my needs - Dmitry already pointed out that the priotree might be > close to sufficient, but I've not yet tried to adapt it), and whatever goes > upstream needs to be generic enough to solve the related problems that a > number of folks are all working on solving. So seeing your approach might > be good too. The code is located here: https://github.com/penberg/linux-kvm/blob/master/tools/kvm/util/rbtree-interval.c Note that we didn't deal with intersecting ranges simply because there was no call for that (we used it to map devices in a virtual memory range, and those can't intersect). But it's not much of an issue expanding the range intersection function to deal with that. If the code above looks ok to you I'll format it as a patch and re-send it. Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile ranges (v4) @ 2012-03-16 22:51 John Stultz 2012-03-16 22:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-16 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V Ok. So here's another iteration of the fadvise volatile range code. I realize this is still a way off from being ready, but I wanted to post what I have to share with folks working on the various range/interval management ideas as well as update folks who've provided feedback on the volatile range code. So just on the premise: Ideally, I want delayed reclaim based hole punching. Application has a possibly shared mmapped cache file, which it can mark chunks of which volatile or nonvolatile as it uses it. If the kernel needs memory, it can zap any ranges that are currently marked volatile. Some examples would be rendering of images or web pages that are not on-screen. This allows the application to volunteer memory for reclaiming, and the kernel to grab it only when it needs. This differs from some of the memory notification schemes, in that it allows the kernel to immediately reclaim what it needs, rather then having to request applications to give up memory (which may add further memory load) until enough is free. However, unlike the notification scheme, it does require applications to mark and unmark pages as volatile as they use them. Current use cases (ie: users of Android's ashmem) only use shmfs/tmpfs. However, I don't see right off why it should be limited to shm. As long as punching a hole in a file can be done w/ minimal memory overhead this could be useful and have somewhat sane behavior. We could also only zap the page cache, not writing any dirty data out. However, w/ non-shm files, discarding dirty data without hole punching would obviously leave persistent files in a non-coherent state. This may further re-inforce that the design should be shm only if we don't do hole punching. On the topic of hole punching, the kernel doesn't seem completely unified in this as well. As I understand, there are two methods to do hole punching: FALLOCATE_FL_PUNCH_HOLE vs MADV_REMOVE, and they don't necessarily overlap in support. For the most part, it seems persistent filesystems require FALLOCATE_FL_PUNCH, where as shmfs/tmpfs uses MADV_REMOVE. But I may be misunderstanding the subtle difference here, so if anyone wants to clarify this, it would be great. One concern was that if the design is shm only, fadvise might not be the right interface, as it should be generic. The madvise(MADV_REMOVE,...) interface gives some precedence to shmfs/tmpfs only calls, but I'd like to get some further feedback as to what folks think of this. If we are shm/tmpfs only, I could rework this design to use madvise instead of fadvise if folks would prefer. Also, there's still the issue that lockdep doesn't like me calling vmtruncate_range from the shrinker due to any allocations being done while the i_mutex is taken could cause the shrinker to run and need the i_mutex again. I did try using invalidate_inode_pages2_range() but it always returns EBUSY in this context, so I suspect I want something else. I'm currently reading shmem_truncate_range() and zap_page_range() to get a better idea of how to this might be best accomplished. Regarding feedback suggesting dropping the LRU ranges, and instead keeping the volatile/purged data in radix tags and to manage things at writeout time. My concern there is having the LRU behavior on the entire range from when it was marked volatile instead of the actual last page access (you might have ranges that have frequent use areas and non-frequent use). Also sorting out how to evict the entire range when one page is dropped might be funky. However, I'll likely revisit this soon, but for this iteration I didn't get to it. I still also realize I have the issue of bloating the address_space structure to handle, and I suspect if I continue w/ this approach I'll use a separate hash table to store the range-tree roots in my next revision. Anyway, thanks for the continued advice and feedback! -john CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> John Stultz (2): [RFC] Range tree implementation [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags fs/inode.c | 4 + include/linux/fadvise.h | 5 + include/linux/fs.h | 2 + include/linux/rangetree.h | 53 ++++++++ include/linux/volatile.h | 14 ++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 105 +++++++++++++++ mm/Makefile | 2 +- mm/fadvise.c | 16 ++- mm/volatile.c | 313 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 10 files changed, 513 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 include/linux/volatile.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c create mode 100644 mm/volatile.c -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-03-16 22:51 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile ranges (v4) John Stultz @ 2012-03-16 22:51 ` John Stultz 2012-03-20 10:00 ` Dmitry Adamushko 2012-03-20 16:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-16 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do let me know if you have a better name. The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, and that has lots of memory ownership issues. So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to find overlapping and adjacent ranges. Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced impelementation may make it possible. Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for better ways to do the same. Changelog: v2: * Reworked code to use an rbtree instead of splaying CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> CC: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> CC: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> CC: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com> CC: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- include/linux/rangetree.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c diff --git a/include/linux/rangetree.h b/include/linux/rangetree.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ca03821 --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/rangetree.h @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGETREE_H +#define _LINUX_RANGETREE_H + +#include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/rbtree.h> + +struct range_tree_node { + struct rb_node rb; + u64 start; + u64 end; +}; + +struct range_tree_root { + struct rb_root head; +}; + +static inline void range_tree_init(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + root->head = RB_ROOT; +} + +static inline void range_tree_node_init(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + rb_init_node(&node->rb); + node->start = 0; + node->end = 0; +} + +static inline int range_tree_empty(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + return RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&root->head); +} + +static inline +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_root_node(struct range_tree_root *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *ret; + ret = container_of(root->head.rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + return ret; +} + +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +extern void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +#endif + + diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 18515f0..f43ef0d 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \ sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \ proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ - is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o + is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o rangetree.o lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o diff --git a/lib/rangetree.c b/lib/rangetree.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0f6208a --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/rangetree.c @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +#include <linux/rangetree.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the + * given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (*p) { + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end < candidate->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end) + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + + return 0; +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps or is adjacent + * with the given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_root *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + + while (*p) { + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (end+1 < candidate->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else if (start > candidate->end + 1) + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + else + return candidate; + } + return 0; +} + +/** + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree + * @root: range tree to be added to + * @node: range_tree_node to be added + * + * Adds a node to the range tree. + */ +void range_tree_add(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; + struct rb_node *parent = NULL; + struct range_tree_node *ptr; + + WARN_ON_ONCE(!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + while (*p) { + parent = *p; + ptr = rb_entry(parent, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (node->start < ptr->start) + p = &(*p)->rb_left; + else + p = &(*p)->rb_right; + } + rb_link_node(&node->rb, parent, p); + rb_insert_color(&node->rb, &root->head); + +} + + +/** + * range_tree_remove: Removes a given node from the tree + * @root: root of tree + * @node: Node to be removed + * + * Removes a node and splays the tree + */ +void range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_root *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + WARN_ON_ONCE(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&node->rb)); + + rb_erase(&node->rb, &root->head); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&node->rb); +} -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-03-16 22:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz @ 2012-03-20 10:00 ` Dmitry Adamushko 2012-03-20 18:04 ` John Stultz 2012-03-20 16:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dmitry Adamushko @ 2012-03-20 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V Hi John, On 16 March 2012 23:51, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: > After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea > to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different > approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. > > I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I > couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees > and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do > let me know if you have a better name. > > The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number > of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a > large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. Have you considered using 'prio_tree' (include/linux/prio_tree.h)? If we aim at addressing a wide range of possible use-cases (different patterns of adding/removing volatile ranges), then, at first glance, prio_tree looks like a better approach. e.g. for the "consume and merge a number of smaller ranges" scenario above, prio_tree gives O(log n) [ O(log n + m) ] behavior iso O(m log n) in your case. --Dmitry ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-03-20 10:00 ` Dmitry Adamushko @ 2012-03-20 18:04 ` John Stultz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-03-20 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dmitry Adamushko Cc: linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi, Aneesh Kumar K.V On 03/20/2012 03:00 AM, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hi John, > > On 16 March 2012 23:51, John Stultz<john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: >> After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea >> to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different >> approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. >> >> I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I >> couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees >> and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do >> let me know if you have a better name. >> >> The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number >> of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a >> large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. > Have you considered using 'prio_tree' (include/linux/prio_tree.h)? If > we aim at addressing a wide range of possible use-cases (different > patterns of adding/removing volatile ranges), then, at first glance, > prio_tree looks like a better approach. I'll take a closer look at that! > e.g. for the "consume and merge a number of smaller ranges" scenario > above, prio_tree gives O(log n) [ O(log n + m) ] behavior iso O(m log > n) in your case. Yea, one of the items I was looking at yesterday was to improve the range insert/remove usage, since I end up starting each lookup from the root node over and over. I'm thinking of adding a iterate-next type call so that we don't re-start the lookup each iteration of the loop once we've found an item. Thanks again for the great feedback! -john ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation 2012-03-16 22:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-03-20 10:00 ` Dmitry Adamushko @ 2012-03-20 16:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Aneesh Kumar K.V @ 2012-03-20 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: John Stultz, linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel, Dmitry Adamushko, Dave Chinner, Neil Brown, Andrea Righi John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> writes: .... > +/** > + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the > + * given range > + * @root: range_tree root > + * @start: range start > + * @end: range end > + * > + */ > +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_root *root, > + u64 start, u64 end) > +{ > + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; > + struct range_tree_node *candidate; > + > + while (*p) { > + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); > + if (end < candidate->start) > + p = &(*p)->rb_left; > + else if (start > candidate->end) > + p = &(*p)->rb_right; > + else > + return candidate; > + } > + > + return 0; return NULL ? > +} > + > + > +/** > + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps or is adjacent > + * with the given range > + * @root: range_tree root > + * @start: range start > + * @end: range end > + * > + */ The comment needs update > +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( > + struct range_tree_root *root, > + u64 start, u64 end) > +{ > + struct rb_node **p = &root->head.rb_node; > + struct range_tree_node *candidate; > + > + while (*p) { > + candidate = rb_entry(*p, struct range_tree_node, rb); > + if (end+1 < candidate->start) > + p = &(*p)->rb_left; > + else if (start > candidate->end + 1) > + p = &(*p)->rb_right; > + else > + return candidate; > + } > + return 0; > +} > + Below is my hack to get hugetlbfs code converted. The patch compiles. Will test and send a signed-off-by version later. not-signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 3 +- include/linux/hugetlb.h | 2 + mm/hugetlb.c | 291 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 3 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 157 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c index ca4fa70..8309f5e 100644 --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_root(struct super_block *sb, inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; info = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); mpol_shared_policy_init(&info->policy, NULL); + range_tree_init(&info->rg_root); inode->i_op = &hugetlbfs_dir_inode_operations; inode->i_fop = &simple_dir_operations; /* directory inodes start off with i_nlink == 2 (for "." entry) */ @@ -478,7 +479,6 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &hugetlbfs_aops; inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info =&hugetlbfs_backing_dev_info; inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_mapping->private_list); info = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); /* * The policy is initialized here even if we are creating a @@ -488,6 +488,7 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb, * the rb tree will still be empty. */ mpol_shared_policy_init(&info->policy, NULL); + range_tree_init(&info->rg_root); switch (mode & S_IFMT) { default: init_special_inode(inode, mode, dev); diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h index 32e948c..b785541a 100644 --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ #include <linux/fs.h> #include <linux/hugetlb_inline.h> #include <linux/cgroup.h> +#include <linux/rangetree.h> struct ctl_table; struct user_struct; @@ -150,6 +151,7 @@ struct hugetlbfs_sb_info { struct hugetlbfs_inode_info { struct shared_policy policy; + struct range_tree_root rg_root; struct inode vfs_inode; }; diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c index 4e1462d..a83727d 100644 --- a/mm/hugetlb.c +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c @@ -69,148 +69,94 @@ static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hugetlb_lock); * down_read(&mm->mmap_sem); * mutex_lock(&hugetlb_instantiation_mutex); */ -struct file_region { - struct list_head link; - long from; - long to; -}; - -static long region_add(struct list_head *head, long f, long t) +static long region_chg(struct range_tree_root *rg_root, long start, long end, + struct range_tree_node **rg_nodep) { - struct file_region *rg, *nrg, *trg; + long chg = 0; + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; - /* Locate the region we are either in or before. */ - list_for_each_entry(rg, head, link) - if (f <= rg->to) - break; + rg_node = range_tree_in_range_adjacent(rg_root, start, end); + /* + * If we need to allocate a new range_tree_node, we return a charge + * with NULL *rg_node; + */ + if (rg_node == NULL) + return end - start; - /* Round our left edge to the current segment if it encloses us. */ - if (f > rg->from) - f = rg->from; + if (start < rg_node->start) + chg += rg_node->start - start; + if (rg_node->end < end) + chg += end - rg_node->end; - /* Check for and consume any regions we now overlap with. */ - nrg = rg; - list_for_each_entry_safe(rg, trg, rg->link.prev, link) { - if (&rg->link == head) - break; - if (rg->from > t) - break; - - /* If this area reaches higher then extend our area to - * include it completely. If this is not the first area - * which we intend to reuse, free it. */ - if (rg->to > t) - t = rg->to; - if (rg != nrg) { - list_del(&rg->link); - kfree(rg); - } - } - nrg->from = f; - nrg->to = t; - return 0; + *rg_nodep = rg_node; + return chg; } -static long region_chg(struct list_head *head, long f, long t) +static void region_add(struct range_tree_root *rg_root, long start, long end, + struct range_tree_node *rg_node) { - struct file_region *rg, *nrg; - long chg = 0; - - /* Locate the region we are before or in. */ - list_for_each_entry(rg, head, link) - if (f <= rg->to) - break; + if (rg_node == NULL) + return; - /* If we are below the current region then a new region is required. - * Subtle, allocate a new region at the position but make it zero - * size such that we can guarantee to record the reservation. */ - if (&rg->link == head || t < rg->from) { - nrg = kmalloc(sizeof(*nrg), GFP_KERNEL); - if (!nrg) - return -ENOMEM; - nrg->from = f; - nrg->to = f; - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&nrg->link); - list_add(&nrg->link, rg->link.prev); + if (start < rg_node->start) + rg_node->start = start; - return t - f; - } + if (end > rg_node->end) + rg_node->end = end; - /* Round our left edge to the current segment if it encloses us. */ - if (f > rg->from) - f = rg->from; - chg = t - f; - - /* Check for and consume any regions we now overlap with. */ - list_for_each_entry(rg, rg->link.prev, link) { - if (&rg->link == head) - break; - if (rg->from > t) - return chg; - - /* We overlap with this area, if it extends further than - * us then we must extend ourselves. Account for its - * existing reservation. */ - if (rg->to > t) { - chg += rg->to - t; - t = rg->to; - } - chg -= rg->to - rg->from; - } - return chg; + range_tree_add(rg_root, rg_node); } -static long region_truncate(struct list_head *head, long end) +static long region_truncate(struct range_tree_root *rg_root, long off) { - struct file_region *rg, *trg; long chg = 0; - - /* Locate the region we are either in or before. */ - list_for_each_entry(rg, head, link) - if (end <= rg->to) - break; - if (&rg->link == head) - return 0; - - /* If we are in the middle of a region then adjust it. */ - if (end > rg->from) { - chg = rg->to - end; - rg->to = end; - rg = list_entry(rg->link.next, typeof(*rg), link); - } - - /* Drop any remaining regions. */ - list_for_each_entry_safe(rg, trg, rg->link.prev, link) { - if (&rg->link == head) - break; - chg += rg->to - rg->from; - list_del(&rg->link); - kfree(rg); + struct rb_node *rb_node; + +restart: + rb_node = rb_first(&rg_root->head); + while (rb_node) { + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; + rg_node = rb_entry(rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (rg_node->end <= off) { + rb_node = rb_next(rb_node); + continue; + } + if (rg_node->start < off) { + chg += rg_node->end - off; + rg_node->end = off; + rb_node = rb_next(rb_node); + continue; + } + chg += rg_node->end - rg_node->start; + rb_erase(rb_node, &rg_root->head); + goto restart; } return chg; } -static long region_count(struct list_head *head, long f, long t) +static long region_count(struct range_tree_root *rg_root, long start, long end) { - struct file_region *rg; long chg = 0; + struct rb_node *rb_node; - /* Locate each segment we overlap with, and count that overlap. */ - list_for_each_entry(rg, head, link) { - int seg_from; - int seg_to; + rb_node = rb_first(&rg_root->head); + while (rb_node) { + int seg_from, seg_to; + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; - if (rg->to <= f) + rg_node = rb_entry(rb_node, struct range_tree_node, rb); + if (rg_node->end <= start) { + rb_node = rb_next(rb_node); continue; - if (rg->from >= t) + } + if (rg_node->start >= end) break; - - seg_from = max(rg->from, f); - seg_to = min(rg->to, t); + seg_from = max(rg_node->start, (u64)start); + seg_to = min(rg_node->end, (u64)end); chg += seg_to - seg_from; + rb_node = rb_next(rb_node); } - return chg; } @@ -302,7 +248,7 @@ static void set_vma_private_data(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct resv_map { struct kref refs; - struct list_head regions; + struct range_tree_root rg_root; }; static struct resv_map *resv_map_alloc(void) @@ -312,7 +258,7 @@ static struct resv_map *resv_map_alloc(void) return NULL; kref_init(&resv_map->refs); - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&resv_map->regions); + range_tree_init(&resv_map->rg_root); return resv_map; } @@ -322,7 +268,7 @@ static void resv_map_release(struct kref *ref) struct resv_map *resv_map = container_of(ref, struct resv_map, refs); /* Clear out any active regions before we release the map. */ - region_truncate(&resv_map->regions, 0); + region_truncate(&resv_map->rg_root, 0); kfree(resv_map); } @@ -980,16 +926,19 @@ static void return_unused_surplus_pages(struct hstate *h, * No action is required on failure. */ static long vma_needs_reservation(struct hstate *h, - struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr) + struct vm_area_struct *vma, + unsigned long addr, + struct range_tree_node **rg_node) { struct address_space *mapping = vma->vm_file->f_mapping; struct inode *inode = mapping->host; + struct hugetlbfs_inode_info *hinfo = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); + *rg_node = NULL; if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) { pgoff_t idx = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, addr); - return region_chg(&inode->i_mapping->private_list, - idx, idx + 1); + return region_chg(&hinfo->rg_root, idx, idx + 1, rg_node); } else if (!is_vma_resv_set(vma, HPAGE_RESV_OWNER)) { return 1; @@ -998,28 +947,34 @@ static long vma_needs_reservation(struct hstate *h, pgoff_t idx = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, addr); struct resv_map *reservations = vma_resv_map(vma); - err = region_chg(&reservations->regions, idx, idx + 1); + err = region_chg(&reservations->rg_root, idx, idx + 1, rg_node); if (err < 0) return err; return 0; } } static void vma_commit_reservation(struct hstate *h, - struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr) + struct vm_area_struct *vma, + unsigned long addr, + struct range_tree_node *rg_node) { struct address_space *mapping = vma->vm_file->f_mapping; struct inode *inode = mapping->host; + struct hugetlbfs_inode_info *hinfo = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); + + if (rg_node == NULL) + return; if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) { pgoff_t idx = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, addr); - region_add(&inode->i_mapping->private_list, idx, idx + 1); + region_add(&hinfo->rg_root, idx, idx + 1, rg_node); } else if (is_vma_resv_set(vma, HPAGE_RESV_OWNER)) { pgoff_t idx = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, addr); struct resv_map *reservations = vma_resv_map(vma); /* Mark this page used in the map. */ - region_add(&reservations->regions, idx, idx + 1); + region_add(&reservations->rg_root, idx, idx + 1, rg_node); } } @@ -1027,6 +982,7 @@ static struct page *alloc_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr, int avoid_reserve) { int ret, idx; + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma); struct page *page; struct mem_cgroup *memcg; @@ -1042,18 +998,24 @@ static struct page *alloc_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, * MAP_NORESERVE mappings may also need pages and quota allocated * if no reserve mapping overlaps. */ - chg = vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, addr); - if (chg < 0) - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); - if (chg) - if (hugetlb_get_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg)) - return ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC); + chg = vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, addr, &rg_node); + if (chg > 0 && rg_node == NULL) { + rg_node = kzalloc(sizeof(*rg_node), GFP_KERNEL); + if (rg_node == NULL) + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); + } + if (chg) { + if (hugetlb_get_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg)) { + ret = -ENOSPC; + goto err_out; + } + } ret = mem_cgroup_hugetlb_charge_page(idx, pages_per_huge_page(h), &memcg); if (ret) { - hugetlb_put_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg); - return ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC); + ret = -ENOSPC; + goto err_out_quota; } spin_lock(&hugetlb_lock); page = dequeue_huge_page_vma(h, vma, addr, avoid_reserve); @@ -1062,21 +1024,26 @@ static struct page *alloc_huge_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, if (!page) { page = alloc_buddy_huge_page(h, NUMA_NO_NODE); if (!page) { - mem_cgroup_hugetlb_uncharge_memcg(idx, - pages_per_huge_page(h), - memcg); - hugetlb_put_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg); - return ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC); + ret = -ENOSPC; + goto err_out_uncharge; } } set_page_private(page, (unsigned long) mapping); - vma_commit_reservation(h, vma, addr); + vma_commit_reservation(h, vma, addr, rg_node); /* update page cgroup details */ mem_cgroup_hugetlb_commit_charge(idx, pages_per_huge_page(h), memcg, page); return page; + +err_out_uncharge: + mem_cgroup_hugetlb_uncharge_memcg(idx, pages_per_huge_page(h), memcg); +err_out_quota: + hugetlb_put_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg); +err_out: + kfree(rg_node); + return ERR_PTR(ret); } int __weak alloc_bootmem_huge_page(struct hstate *h) @@ -2170,7 +2137,7 @@ static void hugetlb_vm_op_close(struct vm_area_struct *vma) end = vma_hugecache_offset(h, vma, vma->vm_end); reserve = (end - start) - - region_count(&reservations->regions, start, end); + region_count(&reservations->rg_root, start, end); kref_put(&reservations->refs, resv_map_release); @@ -2697,11 +2664,13 @@ retry: * any allocations necessary to record that reservation occur outside * the spinlock. */ - if ((flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) - if (vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, address) < 0) { + if ((flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) { + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; + if (vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, address, &rg_node) < 0) { ret = VM_FAULT_OOM; goto backout_unlocked; } + } spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock); size = i_size_read(mapping->host) >> huge_page_shift(h); @@ -2789,7 +2758,8 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, * consumed. */ if ((flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !pte_write(entry)) { - if (vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, address) < 0) { + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; + if (vma_needs_reservation(h, vma, address, &rg_node) < 0) { ret = VM_FAULT_OOM; goto out_mutex; } @@ -2975,7 +2945,9 @@ int hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, vm_flags_t vm_flags) { long ret, chg; + struct range_tree_node *rg_node; struct hstate *h = hstate_inode(inode); + struct hugetlbfs_inode_info *hinfo = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); /* * Only apply hugepage reservation if asked. At fault time, an @@ -2992,25 +2964,27 @@ int hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, * called to make the mapping read-write. Assume !vma is a shm mapping */ if (!vma || vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) - chg = region_chg(&inode->i_mapping->private_list, from, to); + chg = region_chg(&hinfo->rg_root, from, to, &rg_node); else { struct resv_map *resv_map = resv_map_alloc(); if (!resv_map) return -ENOMEM; - chg = to - from; - + chg = region_chg(&resv_map->rg_root, from, to, &rg_node); set_vma_resv_map(vma, resv_map); set_vma_resv_flags(vma, HPAGE_RESV_OWNER); } - - if (chg < 0) - return chg; - + if (chg > 0 && rg_node == NULL ) { + /* We need allocate a new node */ + rg_node = kzalloc(sizeof(*rg_node), GFP_KERNEL); + if (rg_node == NULL) + return -ENOMEM; + } /* There must be enough filesystem quota for the mapping */ - if (hugetlb_get_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg)) - return -ENOSPC; - + if (hugetlb_get_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg)) { + ret = -ENOSPC; + goto err_out; + } /* * Check enough hugepages are available for the reservation. * Hand back the quota if there are not @@ -3018,7 +2992,7 @@ int hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, ret = hugetlb_acct_memory(h, chg); if (ret < 0) { hugetlb_put_quota(inode->i_mapping, chg); - return ret; + goto err_out; } /* @@ -3033,14 +3007,19 @@ int hugetlb_reserve_pages(struct inode *inode, * else has to be done for private mappings here */ if (!vma || vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) - region_add(&inode->i_mapping->private_list, from, to); + region_add(&hinfo->rg_root, from, to, rg_node); return 0; +err_out: + kfree(rg_node); + return ret; } void hugetlb_unreserve_pages(struct inode *inode, long offset, long freed) { struct hstate *h = hstate_inode(inode); - long chg = region_truncate(&inode->i_mapping->private_list, offset); + struct hugetlbfs_inode_info *hinfo = HUGETLBFS_I(inode); + + long chg = region_truncate(&hinfo->rg_root, offset); spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); inode->i_blocks -= (blocks_per_huge_page(h) * freed); ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation @ 2012-02-10 0:16 John Stultz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: John Stultz @ 2012-02-10 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: John Stultz, Andrew Morton, Android Kernel Team, Robert Love, Mel Gorman, Hugh Dickins, Dave Hansen, Rik van Riel After Andrew suggested something like his mumbletree idea to better store a list of ranges, I worked on a few different approaches, and this is what I've finally managed to get working. I suspect range-tree isn't a totally accurate name, but I couldn't quite make out the difference between range trees and interval trees, so I just picked one to call it. Do let me know if you have a better name. The idea of storing ranges in a tree is nice, but has a number of complications. When adding a range, its possible that a large range will consume and merge a number of smaller ranges. When removing a range, its possible you may end up splitting an existing range, causing one range to become two. This makes it very difficult to provide generic list_head like behavior, as the parent structures would need to be duplicated and removed, and that has lots of memory ownership issues. So, this is a much simplified and more list_head like implementation. You can add a node to a tree, or remove a node to a tree, but the generic implementation doesn't do the merging or splitting for you. But it does provide helpers to find overlapping and adjacent ranges. I made the tree self-balancing via splaying as it seemed easier to handle with the merging/splitting cases I originally tried to make the generic code handle, but since I've dropped that, I suspect it can be reworked to use a rbtree. I just wanted to get this out for initial review. Andrew also really wanted this range-tree implementation to be resuable so we don't duplicate the file locking logic. I'm not totally convinced that the requirements between the volatile ranges and file locking are really equivelent, but this reduced impelementation may make it possible. Do let me know what you think or if you have other ideas for better ways to do the same. thanks -john CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> CC: Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@android.com> CC: Robert Love <rlove@google.com> CC: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> CC: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- include/linux/rangetree.h | 35 +++++ lib/Makefile | 2 +- lib/rangetree.c | 325 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 361 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) create mode 100644 include/linux/rangetree.h create mode 100644 lib/rangetree.c diff --git a/include/linux/rangetree.h b/include/linux/rangetree.h new file mode 100644 index 0000000..998ebcc --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/rangetree.h @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +#ifndef _LINUX_RANGETREE_H +#define _LINUX_RANGETREE_H + +#include <linux/types.h> +#include <linux/fs.h> + +struct range_tree_node { + struct range_tree_node *parent; + struct range_tree_node *left; + struct range_tree_node *right; + u64 start; + u64 end; +}; + +static inline void range_tree_node_init(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + node->parent = NULL; + node->left = NULL; + node->right = NULL; + node->start = 0; + node->end = 0; +} + +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_node *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_node *root, + u64 start, u64 end); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_add(struct range_tree_node *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +extern struct range_tree_node *range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_node *root, + struct range_tree_node *node); +#endif + + diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile index 18515f0..f43ef0d 100644 --- a/lib/Makefile +++ b/lib/Makefile @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ lib-y := ctype.o string.o vsprintf.o cmdline.o \ idr.o int_sqrt.o extable.o prio_tree.o \ sha1.o md5.o irq_regs.o reciprocal_div.o argv_split.o \ proportions.o prio_heap.o ratelimit.o show_mem.o \ - is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o + is_single_threaded.o plist.o decompress.o rangetree.o lib-$(CONFIG_MMU) += ioremap.o lib-$(CONFIG_SMP) += cpumask.o diff --git a/lib/rangetree.c b/lib/rangetree.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db20665 --- /dev/null +++ b/lib/rangetree.c @@ -0,0 +1,325 @@ +#include <linux/rangetree.h> +#include <linux/kernel.h> +#include <linux/slab.h> + +/** + * rotate_right - Splay tree helper + * @node: node to be rotated right + * @root: tree root + * + * Returns the tree root after rotating the node right + */ +static struct range_tree_node *rotate_right(struct range_tree_node *node, + struct range_tree_node *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *new_root, *new_right; + + if (!node->left) + return root; + + new_root = node->left; + new_right = node; + + if (root == node) + root = new_root; + + new_right->left = new_root->right; + new_root->parent = new_right->parent; + if (new_root->parent) { + if (new_root->parent->right == new_right) + new_root->parent->right = new_root; + else + new_root->parent->left = new_root; + } + new_right->parent = new_root; + + new_root->right = new_right; + + if (new_right->left) + new_right->left->parent = new_right; + + + /* Paranoid sanity checking */ + if (new_root->left) + BUG_ON(new_root->left->parent != new_root); + if (new_root->right) + BUG_ON(new_root->right->parent != new_root); + if (new_right->left) + BUG_ON(new_right->left->parent != new_right); + if (new_right->right) + BUG_ON(new_right->right->parent != new_right); + + + return root; + +} + +/** + * rotate_left - Splay tree helper + * @node: node to be rotated left + * @root: tree root + * + * Returns the tree root after rotating the node left + */ +static struct range_tree_node *rotate_left(struct range_tree_node *node, + struct range_tree_node *root) +{ + struct range_tree_node *new_root, *new_left; + + if (!node->right) + return root; + + new_root = node->right; + new_left = node; + + if (root == node) + root = new_root; + + new_left->right = new_root->left; + if (new_left->right) + new_left->right->parent = new_left; + new_root->parent = new_left->parent; + if (new_root->parent) { + if (new_root->parent->left == new_left) + new_root->parent->left = new_root; + else + new_root->parent->right = new_root; + } + new_left->parent = new_root; + new_root->left = new_left; + + + /* Paranoid sanity checking */ + if (new_root->left) + BUG_ON(new_root->left->parent != new_root); + if (new_root->right) + BUG_ON(new_root->right->parent != new_root); + if (new_left->left) + BUG_ON(new_left->left->parent != new_left); + if (new_left->right) + BUG_ON(new_left->right->parent != new_left); + + return root; +} + +/** + * splay_tree Splays a node to the top of a tree + * @root: root of the splay tree + * @node: node to be splayed to the root + * + * Returns the root of a tree after splaying + */ +static struct range_tree_node *splay_tree(struct range_tree_node *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ +restart: + if (root == node) + return root; + + if (node->parent == root) { + if (root->left == node) + root = rotate_right(root, root); + else + root = rotate_left(root, root); + return root; + } else { + struct range_tree_node *parent, *grandparent; + + parent = node->parent; + grandparent = parent->parent; + + if ((node == parent->left) && (parent == grandparent->left)) { + root = rotate_right(grandparent, root); + root = rotate_right(parent, root); + } else if ((node == parent->right) && + (parent == grandparent->right)) { + root = rotate_left(grandparent, root); + root = rotate_left(parent, root); + } else if ((node == parent->right) && + (parent == grandparent->left)) { + root = rotate_left(parent, root); + root = rotate_right(grandparent, root); + } else if ((node == parent->left) && + (parent == grandparent->right)) { + root = rotate_right(parent, root); + root = rotate_left(grandparent, root); + } else { + BUG_ON(1); /* Something is odd */ + } + goto restart; + } +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps with the + * given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range(struct range_tree_node *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct range_tree_node *candidate = root; + + if (!candidate) + return 0; +restart: + if (end < candidate->start) { + if (candidate->left) { + candidate = candidate->left; + goto restart; + } + } else if (start > candidate->end) { + if (candidate->right) { + candidate = candidate->right; + goto restart; + } + } else + return candidate; + return 0; +} + + +/** + * range_tree_in_range - Returns the first node that overlaps or is adjacent + * with the given range + * @root: range_tree root + * @start: range start + * @end: range end + * + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_in_range_adjacent( + struct range_tree_node *root, + u64 start, u64 end) +{ + struct range_tree_node *candidate = root; + + if (!candidate) + return 0; +restart: + if (end + 1 < candidate->start) { + if (candidate->left) { + candidate = candidate->left; + goto restart; + } + } else if (start > candidate->end + 1) { + if (candidate->right) { + candidate = candidate->right; + goto restart; + } + } else + return candidate; + return 0; +} + +/** + * range_tree_add - Add a node to a range tree + * @root: range tree to be added to + * @node: range_tree_node to be added + * + * Adds a node to the range tree. + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_add(struct range_tree_node *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct range_tree_node *candidate; + /* make sure its not connected */ + BUG_ON(node->parent || node->left || node->right); + + if (!root) + return node; + + candidate = root; +restart: + if (node->start < candidate->start) { + if (candidate->left) { + candidate = candidate->left; + goto restart; + } + candidate->left = node; + node->parent = candidate; + } else if (node->start > candidate->start) { + if (candidate->right) { + candidate = candidate->right; + goto restart; + } + candidate->right = node; + node->parent = candidate; + } + + root = splay_tree(root, node); + return root; +} + +/** + * range_tree_merge - Helper to merge two range sub-trees + * @left: left subtree to be merged + * @right: right subtree to be merged + * + * Returns a merged range tree of two subtrees. left subtree + * must be all less then the right subtree. + */ +static struct range_tree_node *range_tree_merge(struct range_tree_node *left, + struct range_tree_node *right) +{ + struct range_tree_node *merge; + + if (!left) + return right; + if (!right) + return left; + + merge = left; + /* grab the right-most node on the left side */ + while (merge->right) + merge = merge->right; + merge->right = right; + if (right) + right->parent = merge; + + return left; +} + +/** + * null_node: Helper that clears node data + * @node: Node to be cleared + */ +static void null_node(struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + node->left = node->right = node->parent = NULL; + node->start = node->end = 0; +} + +/** + * range_tree_remove: Removes a given node from the tree + * @root: root of tree + * @node: Node to be removed + * + * Removes a node and splays the tree + */ +struct range_tree_node *range_tree_remove(struct range_tree_node *root, + struct range_tree_node *node) +{ + struct range_tree_node *subtree; + + subtree = range_tree_merge(node->left, node->right); + + if (subtree) + subtree->parent = node->parent; + + if (node->parent && node->parent->left == node) + node->parent->left = subtree; + if (node->parent && node->parent->right == node) + node->parent->right = subtree; + + null_node(node); + if (node == root) + return subtree; + + if (subtree) + root = splay_tree(root, subtree); + return root; +} -- 1.7.3.2.146.gca209 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-04-14 1:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-03-21 4:15 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] fadivse volatile & range tree (v5) John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-03-21 4:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] fadvise: Add _VOLATILE,_ISVOLATILE, and _NONVOLATILE flags John Stultz -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2012-04-14 1:07 [PATCH 0/2][RFC] Volatile Ranges (v7) John Stultz 2012-04-14 1:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-04-07 0:08 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile Ranges (v6) John Stultz 2012-04-07 0:08 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-04-07 17:36 ` Sasha Levin 2012-04-09 18:04 ` John Stultz 2012-04-09 18:44 ` Sasha Levin 2012-03-16 22:51 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Volatile ranges (v4) John Stultz 2012-03-16 22:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] Range tree implementation John Stultz 2012-03-20 10:00 ` Dmitry Adamushko 2012-03-20 18:04 ` John Stultz 2012-03-20 16:44 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V 2012-02-10 0:16 John Stultz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).