From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: vmalloc: use rwsem, mutex for vmap_area_lock and vmap_block->lock
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 11:24:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBmF7OMw2TAOYsfW@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZBmBZqhOHdGt4t9n@destitution>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:05:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 07:45:56AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 06:23:39AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:09:31AM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > > > vmalloc() is, by design, not permitted to be used in atomic context and
> > > > > already contains components which may sleep, so avoiding spin locks is not
> > > > > a problem from the perspective of atomic context.
> > > > >
> > > > > The global vmap_area_lock is held when the red/black tree rooted in
> > > > > vmap_are_root is accessed and thus is rather long-held and under
> > > > > potentially high contention. It is likely to be under contention for reads
> > > > > rather than write, so replace it with a rwsem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Each individual vmap_block->lock is likely to be held for less time but
> > > > > under low contention, so a mutex is not an outrageous choice here.
> > > > >
> > > > > A subset of test_vmalloc.sh performance results:-
> > > > >
> > > > > fix_size_alloc_test 0.40%
> > > > > full_fit_alloc_test 2.08%
> > > > > long_busy_list_alloc_test 0.34%
> > > > > random_size_alloc_test -0.25%
> > > > > random_size_align_alloc_test 0.06%
> > > > > ...
> > > > > all tests cycles 0.2%
> > > > >
> > > > > This represents a tiny reduction in performance that sits barely above
> > > > > noise.
> > > >
> > > > I'm travelling right now, but give me a few days and I'll test this
> > > > against the XFS workloads that hammer the global vmalloc spin lock
> > > > really, really badly. XFS can use vm_map_ram and vmalloc really
> > > > heavily for metadata buffers and hit the global spin lock from every
> > > > CPU in the system at the same time (i.e. highly concurrent
> > > > workloads). vmalloc is also heavily used in the hottest path
> > > > throught the journal where we process and calculate delta changes to
> > > > several million items every second, again spread across every CPU in
> > > > the system at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > We really need the global spinlock to go away completely, but in the
> > > > mean time a shared read lock should help a little bit....
> > > >
> >
> > Hugely appreciated Dave, however I must disappoint on the rwsem as I have now
> > reworked my patch set to use the original locks in order to satisfy Willy's
> > desire to make vmalloc atomic in future, and Uladzislau's desire to not have a
> > ~6% performance hit -
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1679354384.git.lstoakes@gmail.com/
>
> Yeah, I'd already read that.
>
> What I want to do, though, is to determine whether the problem
> shared access contention or exclusive access contention. If it's
> exclusive access contention, then an rwsem will do nothing to
> alleviate the problem, and that's kinda critical to know before any
> fix for the contention problems are worked out...
>
> > > I am working on it. I submitted a proposal how to eliminate it:
> > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Hello, LSF.
> > >
> > > Title: Introduce a per-cpu-vmap-cache to eliminate a vmap lock contention
> > >
> > > Description:
> > > Currently the vmap code is not scaled to number of CPU cores in a system
> > > because a global vmap space is protected by a single spinlock. Such approach
> > > has a clear bottleneck if many CPUs simultaneously access to one resource.
> > >
> > > In this talk i would like to describe a drawback, show some data related
> > > to contentions and places where those occur in a code. Apart of that i
> > > would like to share ideas how to eliminate it providing a few approaches
> > > and compare them.
>
> If you want data about contention problems with vmalloc
>
> > > Requirements:
> > > * It should be a per-cpu approach;
>
> Hmmmm. My 2c worth on this: That is not a requirement.
>
> That's a -solution-.
>
> The requirement is that independent concurrent vmalloc/vfree
> operations do not severely contend with each other.
>
> Yes, the solution will probably involve sharding the resource space
> across mulitple independent structures (as we do in filesystems with
> block groups, allocations groups, etc) but that does not necessarily
> need the structures to be per-cpu.
>
> e.g per-node vmalloc arenas might be sufficient and allow more
> expensive but more efficient indexing structures to be used because
> we don't have to care about the explosion of memory that
> fine-grained per-cpu indexing generally entails. This may also fit
> in to the existing per-node structure of the memory reclaim
> infrastructure to manage things like compaction, balancing, etc of
> vmalloc space assigned to the given node.
>
> Hence I think saying "per-cpu is a requirement" kinda prevents
> exploration of other novel solutions that may have advantages other
> than "just solves the concurrency problem"...
>
> > > * Search of freed ptrs should not interfere with other freeing(as much as we can);
> > > * - offload allocated areas(buzy ones) per-cpu;
> > > * Cache ready sized objects or merge them into one big per-cpu-space(split on demand);
> > > * Lazily-freed areas either drained per-cpu individually or by one CPU for all;
> > > * Prefetch a fixed size in front and allocate per-cpu
>
> I'd call these desired traits and/or potential optimisations, not
> hard requirements.
>
> > > Goals:
> > > * Implement a per-cpu way of allocation to eliminate a contention.
>
> The goal should be to "allow contention-free vmalloc operations", not
> that we implement a specific solution.
>
I think we are on the same page. I do not see that we go apart in anything.
Probably i was a bit more specific in requirements but this is how i see
personally on it based on different kind of experiments with it.
Thank you for your 2c!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-21 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-19 7:09 [PATCH v2 0/4] convert read_kcore(), vread() to use iterators Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-19 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] fs/proc/kcore: Avoid bounce buffer for ktext data Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-20 9:58 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-03-19 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: vmalloc: use rwsem, mutex for vmap_area_lock and vmap_block->lock Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-19 20:10 ` Andrew Morton
2023-03-19 20:29 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-19 20:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-03-19 21:16 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-20 8:40 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-20 7:54 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-20 8:25 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-20 8:32 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-20 8:35 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-20 11:20 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-21 1:09 ` Dave Chinner
2023-03-21 5:23 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-21 7:45 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-21 8:54 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-21 10:05 ` Dave Chinner
2023-03-21 10:24 ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2023-03-22 13:18 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-22 17:47 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-03-22 18:01 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-22 19:15 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-23 12:47 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-24 5:25 ` Dave Chinner
2023-03-24 5:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-03-27 0:38 ` Dave Chinner
2023-03-27 17:22 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-28 2:53 ` Dave Chinner
2023-03-28 12:40 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2023-03-19 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] fs/proc/kcore: convert read_kcore() to read_kcore_iter() Lorenzo Stoakes
2023-03-19 7:09 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: vmalloc: convert vread() to vread_iter() Lorenzo Stoakes
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=ZBmF7OMw2TAOYsfW@pc636 \
--to=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liushixin2@huawei.com \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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).