From: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com> To: Hugh Dickins <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Linux-MM <email@example.com>, Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>, linux-fsdevel <email@example.com>, Amir Goldstein <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work.. Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:59:41 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgkD+sVx3cHAAzhVO5orgksY=7i8q6mbzwBjN0+4XTAUw@mail.gmail.com> (raw) So this is all just preliminary, but I'd really like to have people think more about the page fault handling of the page lock, and I have a small experimental series of patches for people to look at and maybe get the discussion started. The three first patches are really just fairly trivial cleanups. They also likely don't really matter, because the *bulk* of all faults - particularly the ones that really shouldn't need any page locking games - should be all about just "filemap_map_pages()". Which is that optimistic "let's insert pages from the page cache as efficiently as possible" case. That's how all the normal private pages that don't actually get modified (so executables, but also any load that uses mmap as a zero-copy read) should generally get populated. That code doesn't actually do "lock_page()" itself (because it all runs under the RCU read lock), but it does to do a trylock, and give up if the page was locked. Which is fine as long as you don't get any contention, but any concurrent faults of the same page in different address spaces will then just mess with other faulters and cause it to fall out of the fast path. And looking at that code, I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually *need* the page lock. It wants the page lock for two reasons: - the truncation worries (which may or may not be relevant - xfs wraps the map_pages with xfs_ilock) - compound page worries (sub-page mapcount updates and page splitting issues) The compound page case I'm not sure about, but it's probably fine to just lock the page in that case - once we end up actually just mapping a hugepage, the number of page faults should be small enough that it probably doesn't matter. The truncation thing could be handled like xfs does, but honestly, I think it can equally well be handled by just doing some operations in the right order, and double-checking that we don't race with truncate. IOW, first increasing the page mapcount, and then re-checking that the page still isn't locked and the mapping is still valid, and reachable in the xarray. Because we can still just drop out of this loop and not populate the page table if we see anything odd going on, but if *this* code doesn't bother getting the page lock (and we make the COW code not do it either), then in all the normal cases you will never have that "fall out of the common case". IOW, I think right now the thing that makes us fall back to the actual page lock is this code itself: by doing the 'trylock", it will make other users of the same page not able to do the fast-case. And I think the trylock is unnecessary. ANYWAY. The patch I have here isn't actually that "just do the checks in the right order" patch. No, it's a dirty nasty "a private mapping doesn't need to be so careful" patch. Ugly, brutish and nasty. Not the right thing at all. But I'm doing it here simply because I wanted to test it out and get people to look at this. This code is "tested" in the sense that it builds for me, and I'm actually running it right now. But I haven't actually stress-tested it or tried to see if it gets rid of some page lock heavy cases. Comments? Linus
next reply other threads:[~2020-10-13 20:00 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-10-13 19:59 Linus Torvalds [this message] 2020-10-13 20:03 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-14 13:05 ` Kirill A. Shutemov 2020-10-14 16:53 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-14 18:15 ` Matthew Wilcox 2020-10-15 10:41 ` Kirill A. Shutemov 2020-10-15 9:43 ` Kirill A. Shutemov 2020-10-15 16:44 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-14 5:50 ` Hugh Dickins [not found] ` <email@example.com> 2020-10-15 2:44 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-15 15:16 ` Possible deadlock in fuse write path (Was: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work..) Vivek Goyal 2020-10-15 19:55 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-10-15 21:21 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-16 10:02 ` Miklos Szeredi 2020-10-16 12:27 ` Matthew Wilcox 2020-10-20 20:42 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-10-21 7:40 ` Miklos Szeredi 2020-10-21 20:12 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-10-28 20:29 ` Miklos Szeredi 2021-02-09 10:01 ` Miklos Szeredi 2021-02-09 19:09 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-10-16 18:19 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-10-16 18:24 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-16 18:24 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-10-16 23:03 ` Dave Chinner
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='CAHk-=wgkD+sVx3cHAAzhVO5orgksY=7i8q6mbzwBjN0+4XTAUw@mail.gmail.com' \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 0/4] Some more lock_page work..' \ /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
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).