From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2485DC6FD18 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229514AbjC2Ru5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:50:57 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44520 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbjC2Ru4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:50:56 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41713DC for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id g19so8160152lfr.9 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:50:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680112253; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CrJBG4j0MX3RJtzvHtYn32M+HCCSyQiEld3ZxAOtBC0=; b=geIMhDJ1Mi5G5pdHbCcdQfvXH2ZwoO8b7FNmTcX+jIk9DpdS0jRRdY051vsCzL8ghw 8HJBAOO3cOBe8xQ/ifI6pIqGe5v8fxSif9fGKHheok6gz7oJhe9nKglOd/OV54efn08B WKI0Viskp/tEPoDtMghrsdf7/GexEGKIQL50tJX07Xtr4TbUHqFoO6kPV0zlEKlfEOpt 6u/bBzUeYhHUVgRpd07cdGge52f6N2rZgZkMR6BKFlBmuKOSQik/NUriOovzIJNUC03F Cs9c7EOxZUGDJazHtAjsG9qXB5PjFq4jpT8uVYMSl9Mdg0AJr1UztZjeiCPStIUB2Y4m bvYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680112253; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CrJBG4j0MX3RJtzvHtYn32M+HCCSyQiEld3ZxAOtBC0=; b=UXbvrf+ZVngyrr26VemTDPsE7WQiSGnXQZteR9nYSyR5ZkqtOrFtnZMYfQ5j0Gy9US PinU2KeQRRU1GB8cXj6h+fsxMnjMAVbmoIJwjZMGVkSu/plePVcN6zBWYi1FZjhiorw8 5rzRRuWrUPdlYsjvV2E8pKKm+7jO7tKhxPCtMdpOnTBcZTorAaxHatKukkbxcC4zlanp M/ItjDD0pvHp6MNwlt0tyG4eA5aYiyrgxXq4ELfmbPWObtHIp4oK1l7wFrHabP6wIVRZ SO5e5spLZAx3BDsI4p8x3BWxuzFd/thVr3OvHcooOE52+p3Rd2Z2iIz/rOYLzTLT6gJJ c8Iw== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9fgHlzReyq3VnDJG4z8nxNvOm61RML2GmkG9KLYEVCby4WybCNa Nv6uWAzjs0JucCaPkb75q/0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b5bWyYa2pQhB7T397LxSlDTtO5CdfVLDLtkRV8ip3h1rjrRIUGLFB48p5UJ8VkXrWNtNaV1w== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:59c6:0:b0:4e9:5f90:748 with SMTP id x6-20020ac259c6000000b004e95f900748mr5957347lfn.9.1680112253181; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc636 (host-90-233-209-50.mobileonline.telia.com. [90.233.209.50]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u4-20020ac251c4000000b004db1a7e6decsm5546238lfm.205.2023.03.29.10.50.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:50:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:50:50 +0200 To: Lorenzo Stoakes Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Baoquan He , Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , Dave Chinner , Oleksiy Avramchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: vmalloc: Remove a global vmap_blocks xarray Message-ID: References: <20230327170126.406044-1-urezki@gmail.com> <132e2d5c-0c1f-4fff-850c-b3fb084455bb@lucifer.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 05:23:04PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 05:01:11PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > Hello, Lorenzo! > > > > > > /* > > > > - * XArray of vmap blocks, indexed by address, to quickly find a vmap block > > > > - * in the free path. Could get rid of this if we change the API to return a > > > > - * "cookie" from alloc, to be passed to free. But no big deal yet. > > > > + * In order to fast access to any "vmap_block" associated with a > > > > + * specific address, we store them into a per-cpu xarray. A hash > > > > + * function is addr_to_vbq() whereas a key is a vb->va->va_start > > > > + * value. > > > > + * > > > > + * Please note, a vmap_block_queue, which is a per-cpu, is not > > > > + * serialized by a raw_smp_processor_id() current CPU, instead > > > > + * it is chosen based on a CPU-index it belongs to, i.e. it is > > > > + * a hash-table. > > > > + * > > > > + * An example: > > > > + * > > > > + * CPU_1 CPU_2 CPU_0 > > > > + * | | | > > > > + * V V V > > > > + * 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 > > > > + * |------|------|------|------|------|------|... > > > > + * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > > > > + * > > > > + * - CPU_1 invokes vm_unmap_ram(6), 6 belongs to CPU0 zone, thus > > > > + * it access: CPU0/INDEX0 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock; > > > > + * > > > > + * - CPU_2 invokes vm_unmap_ram(11), 11 belongs to CPU1 zone, thus > > > > + * it access: CPU1/INDEX1 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock; > > > > + * > > > > + * - CPU_0 invokes vm_unmap_ram(20), 20 belongs to CPU2 zone, thus > > > > + * it access: CPU2/INDEX2 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock. > > > > */ > > > > > > OK so if I understand this correctly, you're overloading the per-CPU > > > vmap_block_queue array to use as a simple hash based on the address and > > > relying on the xa_lock() in xa_insert() to serialise in case of contention? > > > > > > I like the general heft of your comment but I feel this could be spelled > > > out a little more clearly, something like:- > > > > > > In order to have fast access to any vmap_block object associated with a > > > specific address, we use a hash. > > > > > > Rather than waste space on defining a new hash table we take advantage > > > of the fact we already have a static per-cpu array vmap_block_queue. > > > > > > This is already used for per-CPU access to the block queue, however we > > > overload this to _also_ act as a vmap_block hash. The hash function is > > > addr_to_vbq() which hashes on vb->va->va_start. > > > > > > This then uses per_cpu() to lookup the _index_ rather than the > > > _cpu_. Each vmap_block_queue contains an xarray of vmap blocks which are > > > indexed on the same key as the hash (vb->va->va_start). > > > > > > xarray read acceses are protected by RCU lock and inserts are protected > > > by a spin lock so there is no risk of a race here. > > > > > /* > > * In order to fast access to any "vmap_block" associated with a > > * specific address, we use a hash. > > * > > * A per-cpu vmap_block_queue is used in both ways, to serialize > > * an access to free block chains among CPUs(alloc path) and it > > * also acts as a vmap_block hash(alloc/free paths). It means we > > * overload it, since we already have the per-cpu array which is > > * used as a hash table. > > Nit - it may be worth highlighting that when used as a hash it the 'cpu' is > not in fact a cpu but rather a hash key. > > E.g. just add on the end of this something like:- > > When used as a hash table the 'cpu' passed to per_cpu is not actually a CPU > but rather the hash key. > > > * > > * A hash function is addr_to_vbq() which hashes any address to > > * a specific index(in a hash) it belongs to. This then uses a > > * per_cpu() macro to access the array with specific index. > > May need a tweak if you are happy with my review that we can simply have a > helper that returns the xarray in which case we won't necessary have this > function :) but depends of course on how the respin looks! > > > * > > * An example: > > * > > * CPU_1 CPU_2 CPU_0 > > * | | | > > * V V V > > * 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 > > * |------|------|------|------|------|------|... > > * CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 > > * > > * - CPU_1 invokes vm_unmap_ram(6), 6 belongs to CPU0 zone, thus > > * it access: CPU0/INDEX0 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock; > > * > > * - CPU_2 invokes vm_unmap_ram(11), 11 belongs to CPU1 zone, thus > > * it access: CPU1/INDEX1 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock; > > * > > * - CPU_0 invokes vm_unmap_ram(20), 20 belongs to CPU2 zone, thus > > * it access: CPU2/INDEX2 -> vmap_blocks -> xa_lock. > > * > > * This technique allows almost remove a lock-contention in locking > > * primitives which protect insert/remove operations. > > This sentence is a little confusing, perhaps rephrase a little:- > > This technique almost always avoids lock contention on insert/remove, > however the xarray spinlock protects against any contention that remains. > > > */ > > Are you find with it? > > Other than the small nits above (sorry!) it seems fine! Thanks for > updating, much appreciated :) > Good. Made the changes. I will upload a new vX patch. Everything that makes it more clear for readers is worth to do :) -- Uladzislau Rezki