From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rbtree_latch: quit searching when reaching to maximum depth
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 22:39:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyAMOQ7Bp8kYF7urp572SguFjiLs5PmqQvTKAkwfwBrOKQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200515130030.GV2957@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:04 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 12:47:06PM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > lib/rbtree.c has ensured that there is not possible to
> > inadvertently cause (temporary) loops in the tree structure
> > as seen in program order of the modifier. But loop is still
> > possible to be seen in searcher due to CPU's reordering.
> >
> > for example:
> > modifier searcher
> >
> > left rotate at parent
> > parent->rb_right is node
> > search to parent
> > parent->rb_right is node
> > +->see node->rb_left changed
> > WRITE_ONCE(parent->rb_right, tmp);-+ | node->rb_left is parennt
> > no smp_wmb(), some arch can | |
> > reorder these two writes | | loop long between
> > WRITE_ONCE(node->rb_left, parent);-+-+ parent and node
> > |
> > +--->finally see
> > parent->rb_right
> >
> > The long loop won't stop until the modifer's CPU flushes
> > its writes. Too avoid it, we should limit the searching depth.
>
> Cute, have you actually observed this? Did you have performance issues?
I can only test it on x86 by now, which implies smp_wmb() between
writes. I haven't observed any thing wrong. I'm just imaging
it on some other ARCHs.
I accidentally found this part of code when I searched for
whether there is any attempt again to use rbtree with RCU, and
whether there are the cases besides speculative page fault.
>
> > There are no more than (1<<BITS_PER_LONG)-1 nodes in the tree.
> > And the max_depth of a tree is no more than 2*lg(node_count+1),
> > which is no mare than 2*BITS_PER_LONG.
> >
> > So the serarch should stop when diving down up to
> > 2*BITS_PER_LONG depth.
>
> Arguably you can have a larger key space, but I think due to memory
> constraints this limit still isn't wrong. But I do feel you need a
> comment with that.
Sure, I will add some comments about why "2*BITS_PER_LONG" in code.
But how it could be larger key space? there are not more than
(1<<BITS_PER_LONG) bytes in the kernel dereferencable address
space, and (1<<BITS_PER_LONG)/sizeof(rb_node) must be less than
(1<<BITS_PER_LONG)-1.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-15 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-15 12:47 [PATCH 1/2] rbtree_latch: quit searching when reaching to maximum depth Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-15 12:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] rbtree_latch: don't need to check seq when it found a node Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-15 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 13:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] rbtree_latch: quit searching when reaching to maximum depth Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 14:39 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2020-05-15 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-15 15:59 ` [PATCH V2 " Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-15 15:59 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] rbtree_latch: don't need to check seq when it found a node Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-16 4:27 ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-05-16 4:52 ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-16 5:03 ` Michel Lespinasse
2020-05-23 0:56 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] rbtree_latch: quit searching when reaching to maximum depth Lai Jiangshan
2020-05-15 13:14 ` [PATCH " Mathieu Desnoyers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJhGHyAMOQ7Bp8kYF7urp572SguFjiLs5PmqQvTKAkwfwBrOKQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jiangshanlai+lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=David.Woodhouse@intel.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=laijs@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).