[PATCH v2] percpu: optimize locking in pcpu_balance_workfn()

[PATCH v2] percpu: optimize locking in pcpu_balance_workfn()

[Roman Gushchin]

pcpu_balance_workfn() unconditionally calls pcpu_balance_free(),
pcpu_reclaim_populated(), pcpu_balance_populated() and
pcpu_balance_free() again.

Each call to pcpu_balance_free() and pcpu_reclaim_populated() will
cause at least one acquisition of the pcpu_lock. So even if the
balancing was scheduled because of a failed atomic allocation,
pcpu_lock will be acquired at least 4 times. This obviously
increases the contention on the pcpu_lock.

To optimize the scheme let's grab the pcpu_lock on the upper level
(in pcpu_balance_workfn()) and keep it generally locked for the whole
duration of the scheduled work, but release conditionally to perform
any slow operations like chunk (de)population and creation of new
chunks.

Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
---
 mm/percpu.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index e7b9ca82e9aa..deee7e5bb255 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1980,6 +1980,9 @@ void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
  * If empty_only is %false, reclaim all fully free chunks regardless of the
  * number of populated pages.  Otherwise, only reclaim chunks that have no
  * populated pages.
+ *
+ * CONTEXT:
+ * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
  */
 static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
 {
@@ -1987,12 +1990,12 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
 	struct list_head *free_head = &pcpu_chunk_lists[pcpu_free_slot];
 	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, *next;
 
+	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
+
 	/*
 	 * There's no reason to keep around multiple unused chunks and VM
 	 * areas can be scarce.  Destroy all free chunks except for one.
 	 */
-	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
-
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, free_head, list) {
 		WARN_ON(chunk->immutable);
 
@@ -2004,8 +2007,10 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
 			list_move(&chunk->list, &to_free);
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
+	if (list_empty(&to_free))
+		return;
 
+	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, &to_free, list) {
 		unsigned int rs, re;
 
@@ -2019,6 +2024,7 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
 		pcpu_destroy_chunk(chunk);
 		cond_resched();
 	}
+	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -2029,6 +2035,9 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
  * OOM killer to be triggered.  We should avoid doing so until an actual
  * allocation causes the failure as it is possible that requests can be
  * serviced from already backed regions.
+ *
+ * CONTEXT:
+ * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
  */
 static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
 {
@@ -2037,6 +2046,8 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
 	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
 	int slot, nr_to_pop, ret;
 
+	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
+
 	/*
 	 * Ensure there are certain number of free populated pages for
 	 * atomic allocs.  Fill up from the most packed so that atomic
@@ -2064,13 +2075,11 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
 		if (!nr_to_pop)
 			break;
 
-		spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 		list_for_each_entry(chunk, &pcpu_chunk_lists[slot], list) {
 			nr_unpop = chunk->nr_pages - chunk->nr_populated;
 			if (nr_unpop)
 				break;
 		}
-		spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 
 		if (!nr_unpop)
 			continue;
@@ -2080,12 +2089,13 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
 					     chunk->nr_pages) {
 			int nr = min_t(int, re - rs, nr_to_pop);
 
+			spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 			ret = pcpu_populate_chunk(chunk, rs, rs + nr, gfp);
+			cond_resched();
+			spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 			if (!ret) {
 				nr_to_pop -= nr;
-				spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 				pcpu_chunk_populated(chunk, rs, rs + nr);
-				spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 			} else {
 				nr_to_pop = 0;
 			}
@@ -2097,11 +2107,12 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
 
 	if (nr_to_pop) {
 		/* ran out of chunks to populate, create a new one and retry */
+		spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 		chunk = pcpu_create_chunk(gfp);
+		cond_resched();
+		spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 		if (chunk) {
-			spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 			pcpu_chunk_relocate(chunk, -1);
-			spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 			goto retry_pop;
 		}
 	}
@@ -2117,6 +2128,10 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
  * populated pages threshold, reintegrate the chunk if it has empty free pages.
  * Each chunk is scanned in the reverse order to keep populated pages close to
  * the beginning of the chunk.
+ *
+ * CONTEXT:
+ * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
+ *
  */
 static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
 {
@@ -2124,7 +2139,7 @@ static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
 	struct pcpu_block_md *block;
 	int i, end;
 
-	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
+	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
 
 restart:
 	/*
@@ -2190,8 +2205,6 @@ static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
 			list_move(&chunk->list,
 				  &pcpu_chunk_lists[pcpu_sidelined_slot]);
 	}
-
-	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -2212,10 +2225,14 @@ static void pcpu_balance_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
 	 * appropriate.
 	 */
 	mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
+	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
+
 	pcpu_balance_free(false);
 	pcpu_reclaim_populated();
 	pcpu_balance_populated();
 	pcpu_balance_free(true);
+
+	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
 	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
 }
 
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH v2] percpu: optimize locking in pcpu_balance_workfn()

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:03:22PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -1980,6 +1980,9 @@ void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
>   * If empty_only is %false, reclaim all fully free chunks regardless of the
>   * number of populated pages.  Otherwise, only reclaim chunks that have no
>   * populated pages.
> + *
> + * CONTEXT:
> + * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
>   */

What's the shouting all about?  I would write it like this:

 * Context: Process context.  Caller must hold pcpu_lock with interrupts
 * disabled.  This function may drop the lock and re-enable interrupts if
 * it needs to sleep, but will return with the lock held and interrupts
 * disabled.

Re: [PATCH v2] percpu: optimize locking in pcpu_balance_workfn()

[Dennis Zhou]

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 08:56:23PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:03:22PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> > @@ -1980,6 +1980,9 @@ void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
> >   * If empty_only is %false, reclaim all fully free chunks regardless of the
> >   * number of populated pages.  Otherwise, only reclaim chunks that have no
> >   * populated pages.
> > + *
> > + * CONTEXT:
> > + * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
> >   */
> 
> What's the shouting all about?  I would write it like this:

At this point it's just to keep the code consistent.

> 
>  * Context: Process context.  Caller must hold pcpu_lock with interrupts
>  * disabled.  This function may drop the lock and re-enable interrupts if
>  * it needs to sleep, but will return with the lock held and interrupts
>  * disabled.
> 

This is related to background work done via a workqueue not in process
context. I'll take a look at cleaning up the documentation in the
future.

Thanks,
Dennis

Re: [PATCH v2] percpu: optimize locking in pcpu_balance_workfn()

[Dennis Zhou]

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:03:22PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> pcpu_balance_workfn() unconditionally calls pcpu_balance_free(),
> pcpu_reclaim_populated(), pcpu_balance_populated() and
> pcpu_balance_free() again.
> 
> Each call to pcpu_balance_free() and pcpu_reclaim_populated() will
> cause at least one acquisition of the pcpu_lock. So even if the
> balancing was scheduled because of a failed atomic allocation,
> pcpu_lock will be acquired at least 4 times. This obviously
> increases the contention on the pcpu_lock.
> 
> To optimize the scheme let's grab the pcpu_lock on the upper level
> (in pcpu_balance_workfn()) and keep it generally locked for the whole
> duration of the scheduled work, but release conditionally to perform
> any slow operations like chunk (de)population and creation of new
> chunks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> ---
>  mm/percpu.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
> index e7b9ca82e9aa..deee7e5bb255 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu.c
> @@ -1980,6 +1980,9 @@ void __percpu *__alloc_reserved_percpu(size_t size, size_t align)
>   * If empty_only is %false, reclaim all fully free chunks regardless of the
>   * number of populated pages.  Otherwise, only reclaim chunks that have no
>   * populated pages.
> + *
> + * CONTEXT:
> + * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
>   */
>  static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
>  {
> @@ -1987,12 +1990,12 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
>  	struct list_head *free_head = &pcpu_chunk_lists[pcpu_free_slot];
>  	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, *next;
>  
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * There's no reason to keep around multiple unused chunks and VM
>  	 * areas can be scarce.  Destroy all free chunks except for one.
>  	 */
> -	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
> -
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, free_head, list) {
>  		WARN_ON(chunk->immutable);
>  
> @@ -2004,8 +2007,10 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
>  			list_move(&chunk->list, &to_free);
>  	}
>  
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
> +	if (list_empty(&to_free))
> +		return;
>  
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(chunk, next, &to_free, list) {
>  		unsigned int rs, re;
>  
> @@ -2019,6 +2024,7 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
>  		pcpu_destroy_chunk(chunk);
>  		cond_resched();
>  	}
> +	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -2029,6 +2035,9 @@ static void pcpu_balance_free(bool empty_only)
>   * OOM killer to be triggered.  We should avoid doing so until an actual
>   * allocation causes the failure as it is possible that requests can be
>   * serviced from already backed regions.
> + *
> + * CONTEXT:
> + * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
>   */
>  static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>  {
> @@ -2037,6 +2046,8 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>  	struct pcpu_chunk *chunk;
>  	int slot, nr_to_pop, ret;
>  
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Ensure there are certain number of free populated pages for
>  	 * atomic allocs.  Fill up from the most packed so that atomic
> @@ -2064,13 +2075,11 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>  		if (!nr_to_pop)
>  			break;
>  
> -		spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  		list_for_each_entry(chunk, &pcpu_chunk_lists[slot], list) {
>  			nr_unpop = chunk->nr_pages - chunk->nr_populated;
>  			if (nr_unpop)
>  				break;
>  		}
> -		spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  
>  		if (!nr_unpop)
>  			continue;
> @@ -2080,12 +2089,13 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>  					     chunk->nr_pages) {
>  			int nr = min_t(int, re - rs, nr_to_pop);
>  
> +			spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  			ret = pcpu_populate_chunk(chunk, rs, rs + nr, gfp);
> +			cond_resched();
> +			spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  			if (!ret) {
>  				nr_to_pop -= nr;
> -				spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  				pcpu_chunk_populated(chunk, rs, rs + nr);
> -				spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  			} else {
>  				nr_to_pop = 0;
>  			}
> @@ -2097,11 +2107,12 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>  
>  	if (nr_to_pop) {
>  		/* ran out of chunks to populate, create a new one and retry */
> +		spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  		chunk = pcpu_create_chunk(gfp);
> +		cond_resched();
> +		spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  		if (chunk) {
> -			spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  			pcpu_chunk_relocate(chunk, -1);
> -			spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  			goto retry_pop;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -2117,6 +2128,10 @@ static void pcpu_balance_populated(void)
>   * populated pages threshold, reintegrate the chunk if it has empty free pages.
>   * Each chunk is scanned in the reverse order to keep populated pages close to
>   * the beginning of the chunk.
> + *
> + * CONTEXT:
> + * pcpu_lock (can be dropped temporarily)
> + *
>   */
>  static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
>  {
> @@ -2124,7 +2139,7 @@ static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
>  	struct pcpu_block_md *block;
>  	int i, end;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&pcpu_lock);
>  
>  restart:
>  	/*
> @@ -2190,8 +2205,6 @@ static void pcpu_reclaim_populated(void)
>  			list_move(&chunk->list,
>  				  &pcpu_chunk_lists[pcpu_sidelined_slot]);
>  	}
> -
> -	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -2212,10 +2225,14 @@ static void pcpu_balance_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>  	 * appropriate.
>  	 */
>  	mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
> +	spin_lock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
> +
>  	pcpu_balance_free(false);
>  	pcpu_reclaim_populated();
>  	pcpu_balance_populated();
>  	pcpu_balance_free(true);
> +
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&pcpu_lock);
>  	mutex_unlock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 

I've applied this to for-5.14.

Thanks,
Dennis