Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] page count lock for simpler put_page

[Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:41:36AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:57:49PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:08:13AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:36:16PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:04:21AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > > > - Use my proposed page count lock in order to avoid the race. One
> > > > > would have to convert all get_page_unless_zero() sites to use it. I
> > > > > expect the cost would be low but still measurable.
> > > > 
> > > > I didn't yet focus at your problem after we talked about it at MM
> > > > summit, but I seem to recall I suggested there to just get to the head
> > > > page and always take the lock on it. split_huge_page only works at 2M
> > > > aligned pages, the rest you don't care about. Getting to the head page
> > > > compound_lock should be always safe. And that will still scale
> > > > incredibly better than taking the lru_lock for the whole zone (which
> > > > would also work). And it seems the best way to stop split_huge_page
> > > > without having to alter the put_page fast path when it works on head
> > > > pages (the only thing that gets into put_page complex slow path is the
> > > > release of tail pages after get_user_pages* so it'd be nice if
> > > > put_page fast path still didn't need to take locks).
> > > > 
> > > > > - It'd be sweet if one could somehow record the time a THP page was
> > > > > created, and wait for at least one RCU grace period *starting from the
> > > > > recorded THP creation time* before splitting huge pages. In practice,
> > > > > we would be very unlikely to have to wait since the grace period would
> > > > > be already expired. However, I don't think RCU currently provides such
> > > > > a mechanism - Paul, is this something that would seem easy to
> > > > > implement or not ?
> > > 
> > > It should not be hard.  I already have an API for rcutorture testing
> > > use, but it is not appropriate for your use because it is unsynchronized.
> > > 
> > > We need to be careful with what I give you and how you interpret it.
> > > The most effective approach would be for me to give you an API that
> > > filled in a cookie given a pointer to one, then another API that took
> > > pointers to a pair of cookies and returned saying whether or not a
> > > grace period had elapsed.  You would do something like the following:
> > > 
> > > 	rcu_get_gp_cookie(&pagep->rcucookie);
> > > 	. . .
> > > 
> > > 	rcu_get_gp_cookie(&autovarcookie);
> > > 	if (!rcu_cookie_gp_elapsed(&pagep->rcucookie, &autovarcookie))
> > > 		synchronize_rcu();
> > > 
> > > So, how much space do I get for ->rcucookie?  By default, it is a pair
> > > of unsigned longs, but I could live with as small as a single byte if
> > > you didn't mind a high probability of false negatives (me telling you
> > > to do a grace period despite 16 of them having happened in the meantime
> > > due to overflow of a 4-bit field in the byte).
> > > 
> > > That covers TREE_RCU and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU, on to TINY_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU.
> > > 
> > > TINY_RCU will require more thought, as it doesn't bother counting grace
> > > periods.  Ah, but in TINY_RCU, synchronize_rcu() is free, so I simply
> > > make rcu_cookie_gp_elapsed() always return false.
> > > 
> > > OK, TINY_PREEMPT_RCU...  It doesn't count grace periods, either.  But it
> > > is able to reliably detect if there are any RCU readers in flight,
> > > and there normally won't be, so synchronize_rcu() is again free in the
> > > common case.  And no, I don't want to count grace periods as this would
> > > increase the memory footprint.  And the whole point of TINY_PREEMPT_RCU
> > > is to be tiny, after all.  ;-)
> > 
> > I understand you want to be careful with the promises you make in the
> > API.  How about not even exposing the check for whether a grace period
> > elapsed, but instead provide a specialized synchronize_rcu()?
> > 
> > Something like
> > 
> > 	void synchronize_rcu_with(rcu_time_t time)
> > 
> > that only promises all readers from the specified time are finished.
> > 
> > [ And synchronize_rcu() would be equivalent to
> >   synchronize_rcu_with(rcu_current_time()) if I am not mistaken. ]
> > 
> > Then you wouldn't need to worry about how the return value of
> > rcu_cookie_gp_elapsed() might be interpreted, could freely implement
> > it equal to synchronize_rcu() on TINY_RCU, the false positives with
> > small cookies would not be about correctness but merely performance.
> > 
> > And it should still be all that which the THP case requires.
> > 
> > Would that work?
> 
> I currently don't record the times at which past grace periods start
> and finish, but you can think of the cookie I was proposing as being a
> specialized timestamp that measures the passage of time in terms of the
> number of grace periods that have started and finished.  ;-)

Oh, absolutely, that is what I meant.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.

My proposal was more about the function interface, not the unit of the
cookies that are passed around.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>