All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:14:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwECx-zQpzDunhNCd2PEbkQ7KYOfuPyzKM1X-SJ-88ZXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131009072838.GY3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> The workload that I got the report from was a virus scanner, it would
> spawn nr_cpus threads and {mmap file, scan content, munmap} through your
> filesystem.

So I suspect we could make the mmap_sem write area *much* smaller for
the normal cases.

Look at do_mmap_pgoff(), for example: it is run entirely under
mmap_sem, but 99% of what it does doesn't actually need the lock.

The part that really needs the lock is

        addr = get_unmapped_area(file, addr, len, pgoff, flags);
        addr = mmap_region(file, addr, len, vm_flags, pgoff);

but we hold it over all the other stuff too.

In fact, even if we moved the mmap_sem down into do_mmap(), and moved
code around a bit to only hold it over those functions, it would still
cover unnecessarily much. For example, while merging is common, not
merging is pretty common too, and we do that

        vma = kmem_cache_zalloc(vm_area_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);

allocation under the lock. We could easily do things like preallocate
it outside the lock.

Right now mmap_sem covers pretty much the whole system call (we do do
some security checks outside of it).

I think the main issue is that nobody has ever cared deeply enough to
see how far this could be pushed. I suspect there is some low-hanging
fruit for anybody who is willing to handle the pain..

            Linus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
	"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 20:14:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwECx-zQpzDunhNCd2PEbkQ7KYOfuPyzKM1X-SJ-88ZXA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131009072838.GY3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:28 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> The workload that I got the report from was a virus scanner, it would
> spawn nr_cpus threads and {mmap file, scan content, munmap} through your
> filesystem.

So I suspect we could make the mmap_sem write area *much* smaller for
the normal cases.

Look at do_mmap_pgoff(), for example: it is run entirely under
mmap_sem, but 99% of what it does doesn't actually need the lock.

The part that really needs the lock is

        addr = get_unmapped_area(file, addr, len, pgoff, flags);
        addr = mmap_region(file, addr, len, vm_flags, pgoff);

but we hold it over all the other stuff too.

In fact, even if we moved the mmap_sem down into do_mmap(), and moved
code around a bit to only hold it over those functions, it would still
cover unnecessarily much. For example, while merging is common, not
merging is pretty common too, and we do that

        vma = kmem_cache_zalloc(vm_area_cachep, GFP_KERNEL);

allocation under the lock. We could easily do things like preallocate
it outside the lock.

Right now mmap_sem covers pretty much the whole system call (we do do
some security checks outside of it).

I think the main issue is that nobody has ever cared deeply enough to
see how far this could be pushed. I suspect there is some low-hanging
fruit for anybody who is willing to handle the pain..

            Linus

--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-10  3:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <cover.1380748401.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-03  7:32   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-03  7:32     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-07 22:57     ` Tim Chen
2013-10-07 22:57       ` Tim Chen
2013-10-09  6:15       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-09  6:15         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-09  7:28         ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-09  7:28           ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-10  3:14           ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2013-10-10  3:14             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-10-10  5:03             ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-10-10  5:03               ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-10-09 16:34         ` Tim Chen
2013-10-09 16:34           ` Tim Chen
2013-10-10  7:54           ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-10  7:54             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-16  0:09             ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16  0:09               ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16  6:55               ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-16  6:55                 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-16 18:28                 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16 18:28                   ` Tim Chen
2013-11-04 22:36                   ` Tim Chen
2013-11-04 22:36                     ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16 21:55                 ` Tim Chen
2013-10-16 21:55                   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-18  6:52                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-18  6:52                     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] rwsem: check the lock before cpmxchg in down_write_trylock Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] rwsem: remove 'out' label in do_wake Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] rwsem: remove try_reader_grant label do_wake Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] rwsem/wake: check lock before do atomic update Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] MCS Lock: Restructure the MCS lock defines and locking code into its own file Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-08 19:51   ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-08 19:51     ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-08 20:34     ` Tim Chen
2013-10-08 20:34       ` Tim Chen
2013-10-08 21:31       ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-08 21:31         ` Rafael Aquini
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] MCS Lock: optimizations and extra comments Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] MCS Lock: Barrier corrections Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] rwsem: do optimistic spinning for writer lock acquisition Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] rwsem: reduce spinlock contention in wakeup code path Tim Chen
2013-10-02 22:38   ` Tim Chen

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=CA+55aFwECx-zQpzDunhNCd2PEbkQ7KYOfuPyzKM1X-SJ-88ZXA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=Waiman.Long@hp.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.