Re: [PATCH v5] drivers/base/memory.c: cache memory blocks in xarray to accelerate lookup

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 22.01.20 00:10, Scott Cheloha wrote:
> From: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Searching for a particular memory block by id is an O(n) operation
> because each memory block's underlying device is kept in an unsorted
> linked list on the subsystem bus.
> 
> We can cut the lookup cost to O(log n) if we cache each memory block
> in an xarray.  This time complexity improvement is significant on
> systems with many memory blocks.  For example:
> 
> 1. A 128GB POWER9 VM with 256MB memblocks has 512 blocks.  With this
>    change  memory_dev_init() completes ~12ms faster and walk_memory_blocks()
>    completes ~12ms faster.
> 
> Before:
> [    0.005042] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.021591] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.022699] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.038730] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
> 
> After:
> [    0.005057] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.009415] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.010519] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.014135] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
> 
> 2. A 256GB POWER9 LPAR with 256MB memblocks has 1024 blocks.  With
>    this change memory_dev_init() completes ~88ms faster and
>    walk_memory_blocks() completes ~87ms faster.
> 
> Before:
> [    0.252246] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.395469] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.409413] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.433028] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
> [    0.433094] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.500244] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 131072-131583
> 
> After:
> [    0.245063] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.299539] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.313609] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.315287] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-511
> [    0.315349] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.316988] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 131072-131583
> 
> 3. A 32TB POWER9 LPAR with 256MB memblocks has 131072 blocks.  With
>    this change we complete memory_dev_init() ~37 minutes faster and
>    walk_memory_blocks() at least ~30 minutes faster.  The exact timing
>    for walk_memory_blocks() is  missing, though I observed that the
>    soft lockups in walk_memory_blocks() disappeared with the change,
>    suggesting that lower bound.
> 
> Before:
> [   13.703907] memory_dev_init: adding blocks
> [ 2287.406099] memory_dev_init: added all blocks
> [ 2347.494986] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 2527.625378] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 2707.761977] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 2887.899975] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3068.028318] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3248.158764] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3428.287296] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3608.425357] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3788.554572] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 3968.695071] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> [ 4148.823970] [c000000014c5bb60] [c000000000869af4] walk_memory_blocks+0x94/0x160
> 
> After:
> [   13.696898] memory_dev_init: adding blocks
> [   15.660035] memory_dev_init: added all blocks
> (the walk_memory_blocks traces disappear)
> 
> There should be no significant negative impact for machines with few
> memory blocks.  A sparse xarray has a small footprint and an O(log n)
> lookup is negligibly slower than an O(n) lookup for only the smallest
> number of memory blocks.
> 
> 1. A 16GB x86 machine with 128MB memblocks has 132 blocks.  With this
>    change memory_dev_init() completes ~300us faster and walk_memory_blocks()
>    completes no faster or slower.  The improvement is pretty close to noise.
> 
> Before:
> [    0.224752] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.227116] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.227183] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.227183] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-131
> 
> After:
> [    0.224911] memory_dev_init: adding memory blocks
> [    0.226935] memory_dev_init: added memory blocks
> [    0.227089] walk_memory_blocks: walking memory blocks
> [    0.227089] walk_memory_blocks: walked memory blocks 0-131
> 
> Signed-off-by: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.ibm.com>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---
> v2 incorporates suggestions from David Hildenbrand.
> 
> v3 changes:
>   - Rebase atop "drivers/base/memory.c: drop the mem_sysfs_mutex"
> 
>   - Be conservative: don't use radix_tree_for_each_slot() in
>     walk_memory_blocks() yet.  It introduces RCU which could
>     change behavior.  Walking the tree "by hand" with
>     find_memory_block_by_id() is slower but keeps the patch
>     simple.
> 
> v4 changes:
>   - Rewrite commit message to explicitly note the time
>     complexity improvements.
> 
>   - Provide anecdotal accounts of time-savings in changelog
> 
> v5 changes:
>   - Switch from the radix_tree API to the xarray API to conform
>     to current kernel preferences.
> 
>   - Move the time savings accounts into the commit message itself.
>     Remeasure performance changes on the machines I had available.
> 
>     It should be noted that I was not able to get time on the 32TB
>     machine to remeasure the improvements for v5.  The quoted traces
>     are from v4 of the patch.  However, the xarray API is used to
>     implement the radix_tree API, so I expect the performance changes
>     will be identical.
> 
>     I did test v5 of the patch on the other machines mentioned in the
>     commit message to ensure there were no regressions.
> 
>  drivers/base/memory.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> index 799b43191dea..2178d3e6d063 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>  #include <linux/mm.h>
>  #include <linux/stat.h>
>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/xarray.h>
>  
>  #include <linux/atomic.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> @@ -56,6 +57,13 @@ static struct bus_type memory_subsys = {
>  	.offline = memory_subsys_offline,
>  };
>  
> +/*
> + * Memory blocks are cached in a local radix tree to avoid
> + * a costly linear search for the corresponding device on
> + * the subsystem bus.
> + */
> +static DEFINE_XARRAY(memory_blocks);
> +
>  static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(memory_chain);
>  
>  int register_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
> @@ -572,20 +580,14 @@ int __weak arch_get_memory_phys_device(unsigned long start_pfn)
>  /* A reference for the returned memory block device is acquired. */
>  static struct memory_block *find_memory_block_by_id(unsigned long block_id)
>  {
> -	struct device *dev;
> +	struct memory_block *mem;
>  
> -	dev = subsys_find_device_by_id(&memory_subsys, block_id, NULL);
> -	return dev ? to_memory_block(dev) : NULL;
> +	mem = xa_load(&memory_blocks, block_id);
> +	if (mem)
> +		get_device(&mem->dev);
> +	return mem;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * For now, we have a linear search to go find the appropriate
> - * memory_block corresponding to a particular phys_index. If
> - * this gets to be a real problem, we can always use a radix
> - * tree or something here.
> - *
> - * This could be made generic for all device subsystems.
> - */
>  struct memory_block *find_memory_block(struct mem_section *section)
>  {
>  	unsigned long block_id = base_memory_block_id(__section_nr(section));
> @@ -628,9 +630,16 @@ int register_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>  	memory->dev.offline = memory->state == MEM_OFFLINE;
>  
>  	ret = device_register(&memory->dev);
> -	if (ret)
> +	if (ret) {
>  		put_device(&memory->dev);
> -
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +	ret = xa_err(xa_store(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id, memory,
> +			      GFP_KERNEL));
> +	if (ret) {
> +		put_device(&memory->dev);
> +		device_unregister(&memory->dev);
> +	}
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> @@ -688,6 +697,8 @@ static void unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
>  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys))
>  		return;
>  
> +	WARN_ON(xa_erase(&memory_blocks, memory->dev.id) == NULL);
> +
>  	/* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
>  	put_device(&memory->dev);
>  	device_unregister(&memory->dev);
> 

I think only the device_hotplug_lock documentation from me as a fixup
are missing. So this replacing the original patch looks good to me!

Thanks Scott!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb