Re: [PATCH 13/13] mm: Optimize page_lock_anon_vma

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:35:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 15:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:17:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Optimize page_lock_anon_vma() by removing the atomic ref count
> > > ops from the fast path.
> > > 
> > > Rather complicates the code a lot, but might be worth it.
> > 
> > Some questions and a disclaimer below.
> > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  mm/rmap.c |   71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/rmap.c
> > > +++ linux-2.6/mm/rmap.c
> > > @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ static inline struct anon_vma *anon_vma_
> > >  void anon_vma_free(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> > >  {
> > >  	VM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&anon_vma->ref));
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Sync against the anon_vma->lock, so that we can hold the
> > > +	 * lock without requiring a reference. See page_lock_anon_vma().
> > > +	 */
> > > +	mutex_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > 
> > On some systems, the CPU is permitted to pull references into the critical
> > section from either side.  So, do we also need an smp_mb() here?
> > 
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > 
> > So, a question...
> > 
> > Can the above mutex be contended?  If yes, what happens when the
> > competing mutex_lock() acquires the lock at this point?  Or, worse yet,
> > after the kmem_cache_free()?
> > 
> > If no, what do we accomplish by acquiring the lock?
> 
> The thing we gain is that when the holder of the lock finds a !0
> refcount it knows it can't go away because any free will first wait to
> acquire the lock.

OK.  Here is the sequence of events that I am concerned about:

1.	CPU 0 invokes page_lock_anon_vma() [13/13], and executes the
	assignment to anon_vma.  It has not yet attempted to
	acquire the anon_vma->lock mutex.

2.	CPU 1 invokes page_unlock_anon_vma() [13/13], which in turn
	calls anon_vma_put() [5/13], which atomically decrements
	->ref, finds it zero, invokes anon_vma_free() [13/13], which 
	finds ->ref still zero, so acquires ->lock and immediately
	releases it, and then calls kmem_cache_free().

3.	This kmem_cache does have SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, so this
	anon_vma structure will remain an anon_vma for as long as
	CPU 0 remains in its RCU read-side critical section.

4.	CPU 2 allocates an anon_vma, and gets the one that
	CPU 0 just freed.  It initializes it and makes ->ref
	non-zero.

5.	CPU 0 continues executing page_lock_anon_vma(), and therefore
	invokes mutex_trylock() on a now-reused struct anon_vma.
	It finds ->ref nonzero, so increments it and continues using
	it, despite its having been reallocated, possibly to some
	other process.

Or am I missing a step?  (Extremely possible, as I am not as familiar
with this code as I might be.)

> > If the above mutex can be contended, can we fix by substituting
> > synchronize_rcu_expedited()?  Which will soon require some scalability
> > attention if it gets used here, but what else is new?  ;-)
> 
> No, synchronize_rcu_expedited() will not work here, there is no RCU read
> side that covers the full usage of the anon_vma (there can't be, it
> needs to sleep).

Got it, apologies for my confusion.

> > >  	kmem_cache_free(anon_vma_cachep, anon_vma);
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > @@ -291,7 +297,7 @@ void __init anon_vma_init(void)
> > > 
> > >  /*
> > >   * Getting a lock on a stable anon_vma from a page off the LRU is
> > > - * tricky: page_lock_anon_vma relies on RCU to guard against the races.
> > > + * tricky: anon_vma_get relies on RCU to guard against the races.
> > >   */
> > >  struct anon_vma *anon_vma_get(struct page *page)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -320,12 +326,70 @@ out:
> > >  	return anon_vma;
> > >  }
> > > 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Similar to anon_vma_get(), however it relies on the anon_vma->lock
> > > + * to pin the object. However since we cannot wait for the mutex
> > > + * acquisition inside the RCU read lock, we use the ref count
> > > + * in the slow path.
> > > + */
> > >  struct anon_vma *page_lock_anon_vma(struct page *page)
> > >  {
> > > -	struct anon_vma *anon_vma = anon_vma_get(page);
> > > +	struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> > > +	unsigned long anon_mapping;
> > > +
> > > +again:
> > > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > 
> > This is interesting.  You have an RCU read-side critical section with
> > no rcu_dereference().
> > 
> > This strange state of affairs is actually legal (assuming that
> > anon_mapping is the RCU-protected structure) because all dereferences
> > of the anon_vma variable are atomic operations that guarantee ordering
> > (the mutex_trylock() and the atomic_inc_not_zero().
> > 
> > The other dereferences (the atomic_read()s) are under the lock, so
> > are also OK assuming that the lock is held when initializing and
> > updating these fields, and even more OK due to the smp_rmb() below.
> > 
> > But see below.
> 
> Right so the only thing rcu_read_lock() does here is create the
> guarantee that anon_vma is safe to dereference (it lives on a
> SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU slab).
> 
> But yes, I suppose that page->mapping read that now uses ACCESS_ONCE()
> would actually want to be an rcu_dereference(), since that both provides
> the ACCESS_ONCE() as the read-depend barrier that I thing would be
> needed.

Ah, I was getting the wrong access.  Now that I see it, yes, this is
tied to the access of page->mapping that is assigned to anon_mapping.

> > > +	anon_mapping = (unsigned long) ACCESS_ONCE(page->mapping);
> > > +	if ((anon_mapping & PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS) != PAGE_MAPPING_ANON)
> > > +		goto unlock;
> > > +	if (!page_mapped(page))
> > > +		goto unlock;
> > > +
> > > +	anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> > > +	if (!mutex_trylock(&anon_vma->lock)) {
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * We failed to acquire the lock, take a ref so we can
> > > +		 * drop the RCU read lock and sleep on it.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&anon_vma->ref)) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Failed to get a ref, we're dead, bail.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			anon_vma = NULL;
> > > +			goto unlock;
> > > +		}
> > > +		rcu_read_unlock();
> > > 
> > > -	if (anon_vma)
> > >  		mutex_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * We got the lock, drop the temp. ref, if it was the last
> > > +		 * one free it and bail.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->ref)) {
> > > +			mutex_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > > +			anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
> > > +			anon_vma = NULL;
> > > +		}
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +	}
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Got the lock, check we're still alive. Seeing a ref
> > > +	 * here guarantees the object will stay alive due to
> > > +	 * anon_vma_free() syncing against the lock we now hold.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	smp_rmb(); /* Order against anon_vma_put() */
> > 
> > This is ordering the fetch into anon_vma against the atomic_read() below?
> > If so, smp_read_barrier_depends() will cover it more cheaply.  Alternatively,
> > use rcu_dereference() when fetching into anon_vma.
> > 
> > Or am I misunderstanding the purpose of this barrier?
> 
> Yes, it is:
> 
>   atomic_dec_and_test(&anon_vma->ref) /* implies mb */
> 
> 				smp_rmb();
> 				atomic_read(&anon_vma->ref);
> 
> > (Disclaimer: I have not yet found anon_vma_put(), so I am assuming that
> > anon_vma_free() plays the role of a grace period.)
> 
> Yes, that lives in one of the other patches (does not exist in
> mainline).

Thank you -- and yes, I should have thought to search the patch set.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/