Re: [patch 17/18] tile: Use common threadinfo allocator

[Chris Metcalf]

On 5/7/2012 3:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2012, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2012 11:05 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Use the core allocator and deal with the extra cleanup in
>>> arch_release_thread_info().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/tile/include/asm/thread_info.h |    6 ++----
>>>  arch/tile/kernel/process.c          |   23 ++---------------------
>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>> We have some changes we haven't yet merged upstream that this will likely
>> conflict with.
>>
>> You may note that we have APIs like homecache_alloc_pages() that take a
>> core or other magic value to indicate what the "home" cache should be on
>> our architecture.  This enables significant performance optimizations when
>> you can co-locate the home cache with where most of the core references are
>> coming from.
>>
>> The additional changes we haven't yet merged are in the area of managing
>> the home cache dynamically.  Rather than just setting the home cache at
>> allocation time, we allow it to be modified dynamically: for example, as
>> the process migrates, we migrate the kernel and user stack pages.  This is
>> tricky since there are lots of coherence issues to manage, and the changes
>> we have include a variety of changes in the core mm code to handle
>> transitioning the home cache, proper locking, unmapping, hooks in the buddy
>> allocator, blocking other cores while a page is transitioning, etc etc.
>>
>> But, the relevance to this change is that as part of that code, we use the
>> homecache_alloc_page() method to set the home cache of a kernel stack page
>> to be the core that is running the thread (and then migrate the home cache
>> dynamically after that).  Using the new proposed core allocator will mean
>> we lose that hook.  We don't need a free hook (when we're using the dynamic
>> mode we are already hooked into the allocator itself), but we do need a way
>> to know when we're allocating a kernel stack page as opposed to any other
>> kind of a page.
> What's the difference between a kernel stack page for a given node and
> a page which is allocated on a given node ?

No difference except in how it is allocated (and of course how it is
used).  The task migration code currently knows that the kernel stack
should have its home cache migrated; it finds it by VA.  In the absence of
migration the kernel stack page is not treated differently than any other
page_alloc'ed page.

>> The simplest approach is of course just to allow
>> __HAVE_ARCH_THREAD_INFO_ALLOCATOR to continue to be meaningful and use it
>> for tile, but maybe there's some halfway point.  For example, that symbol
>> could refer only to the allocate function, and not also imply an
>> arch-specific free function.  Or, we could have a new much more focused
>> override that was just "a function to use instead of alloc_pages_node",
>> e.g. provide a weak alloc_threadinfo_pages_node() that just was generically
>> just a call to alloc_pages_node, which architectures could override.
> Again, that would give you what? 

The advantage is that when you initially allocate the stack page, you can
set its home cache appropriately to be on the local cpu, where the new task
is likely to run.  Otherwise, you could imagine using a suitable hook for
when the task starts up to migrate the page at that point, but you miss out
on the opportunity to have the allocator return a suitably-cached page up
front when the task is created.

> If you treat kernel stack pages different to general pages allocated
> on a node then why not using a special GFP flag for that purpose?

There are certainly different possible ways to tell the allocator to
allocate a page with its cache "here" vs with its cache fully-distributed
(and thus less local, and less good for stack or percpu pages).  We use a
different approach (some per-task data structures that pass homing info to
the allocator) but we could probably use GFP_ values instead.  But the
point is we need to be able to know to do so, and I think the only obvious
way is to override something in the threadinfo allocator.

Thanks!

-- 
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com

--
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/