lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: page fault scalability patch V10: [2/7] defer/omit taking page_table_lock

Hi Christoph,

Nice work!

On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:04:53PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Changelog
> * Increase parallelism in SMP configurations by deferring
> the acquisition of page_table_lock in handle_mm_fault
> * Anonymous memory page faults bypass the page_table_lock
> through the use of atomic page table operations
> * Swapper does not set pte to empty in transition to swap
> * Simulate atomic page table operations using the
> page_table_lock if an arch does not define
> __HAVE_ARCH_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS. This still provides
> a performance benefit since the page_table_lock
> is held for shorter periods of time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6.9-rc4/mm/memory.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.9-rc4.orig/mm/memory.c 2004-10-14 12:22:14.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.9-rc4/mm/memory.c 2004-10-14 12:22:14.000000000 -0700
> @@ -1314,8 +1314,7 @@
> }
>
> /*
> - * We hold the mm semaphore and the page_table_lock on entry and
> - * should release the pagetable lock on exit..
> + * We hold the mm semaphore
> */
> static int do_swap_page(struct mm_struct * mm,
> struct vm_area_struct * vma, unsigned long address,
> @@ -1327,15 +1326,13 @@
> int ret = VM_FAULT_MINOR;
>
> pte_unmap(page_table);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> page = lookup_swap_cache(entry);
> if (!page) {
> swapin_readahead(entry, address, vma);
> page = read_swap_cache_async(entry, vma, address);
> if (!page) {
> /*
> - * Back out if somebody else faulted in this pte while
> - * we released the page table lock.
> + * Back out if somebody else faulted in this pte
> */
> spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> page_table = pte_offset_map(pmd, address);

The comment above, which is a few lines down on do_swap_page() is now
bogus (the "while we released the page table lock").

/*
* Back out if somebody else faulted in this pte while we
* released the page table lock.
*/
spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
page_table = pte_offset_map(pmd, address);
if (unlikely(!pte_same(*page_table, orig_pte))) {
> @@ -1406,14 +1403,12 @@
> }
>
> /*
> - * We are called with the MM semaphore and page_table_lock
> - * spinlock held to protect against concurrent faults in
> - * multithreaded programs.
> + * We are called with the MM semaphore held.
> */
> static int
> do_anonymous_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> pte_t *page_table, pmd_t *pmd, int write_access,
> - unsigned long addr)
> + unsigned long addr, pte_t orig_entry)
> {
> pte_t entry;
> struct page * page = ZERO_PAGE(addr);
> @@ -1425,7 +1420,6 @@
> if (write_access) {
> /* Allocate our own private page. */
> pte_unmap(page_table);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>
> if (unlikely(anon_vma_prepare(vma)))
> goto no_mem;
> @@ -1434,30 +1428,39 @@
> goto no_mem;
> clear_user_highpage(page, addr);
>
> - spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> + lock_page(page);

Question: Why do you need to hold the pagelock now?

I can't seem to figure that out myself.

> page_table = pte_offset_map(pmd, addr);
>
> - if (!pte_none(*page_table)) {
> - pte_unmap(page_table);
> - page_cache_release(page);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> - goto out;
> - }
> - atomic_inc(&mm->mm_rss);
> entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(mk_pte(page,
> vma->vm_page_prot)),
> vma);
> - lru_cache_add_active(page);
> mark_page_accessed(page);
> - page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr);
> }
>
> - set_pte(page_table, entry);
> + /* update the entry */
> + if (!ptep_cmpxchg(vma, addr, page_table, orig_entry, entry)) {
> + if (write_access) {
> + pte_unmap(page_table);
> + unlock_page(page);
> + page_cache_release(page);
> + }
> + goto out;
> + }
> + if (write_access) {
> + /*
> + * The following two functions are safe to use without
> + * the page_table_lock but do they need to come before
> + * the cmpxchg?
> + */

They do need to come after AFAICS - from the point they are in the reverse map
and the page is on the LRU try_to_unmap() can come in and try to
unmap the pte (now that we dont hold page_table_lock anymore).

> + lru_cache_add_active(page);
> + page_add_anon_rmap(page, vma, addr);
> + atomic_inc(&mm->mm_rss);
> + unlock_page(page);
> + }
> pte_unmap(page_table);
>
> /* No need to invalidate - it was non-present before */
> update_mmu_cache(vma, addr, entry);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> out:
> return VM_FAULT_MINOR;
> no_mem:
> @@ -1473,12 +1476,12 @@
> * As this is called only for pages that do not currently exist, we
> * do not need to flush old virtual caches or the TLB.
> *
> - * This is called with the MM semaphore held and the page table
> - * spinlock held. Exit with the spinlock released.
> + * This is called with the MM semaphore held.
> */
> static int
> do_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> - unsigned long address, int write_access, pte_t *page_table, pmd_t *pmd)
> + unsigned long address, int write_access, pte_t *page_table,
> + pmd_t *pmd, pte_t orig_entry)
> {
> struct page * new_page;
> struct address_space *mapping = NULL;
> @@ -1489,9 +1492,8 @@
>
> if (!vma->vm_ops || !vma->vm_ops->nopage)
> return do_anonymous_page(mm, vma, page_table,
> - pmd, write_access, address);
> + pmd, write_access, address, orig_entry);
> pte_unmap(page_table);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>
> if (vma->vm_file) {
> mapping = vma->vm_file->f_mapping;
> @@ -1589,7 +1591,7 @@
> * nonlinear vmas.
> */
> static int do_file_page(struct mm_struct * mm, struct vm_area_struct * vma,
> - unsigned long address, int write_access, pte_t *pte, pmd_t *pmd)
> + unsigned long address, int write_access, pte_t *pte, pmd_t *pmd, pte_t entry)
> {
> unsigned long pgoff;
> int err;
> @@ -1602,13 +1604,12 @@
> if (!vma->vm_ops || !vma->vm_ops->populate ||
> (write_access && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED))) {
> pte_clear(pte);
> - return do_no_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd);
> + return do_no_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd, entry);
> }
>
> pgoff = pte_to_pgoff(*pte);
>
> pte_unmap(pte);
> - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>
> err = vma->vm_ops->populate(vma, address & PAGE_MASK, PAGE_SIZE, vma->vm_page_prot, pgoff, 0);
> if (err == -ENOMEM)
> @@ -1627,49 +1628,49 @@
> * with external mmu caches can use to update those (ie the Sparc or
> * PowerPC hashed page tables that act as extended TLBs).
> *
> - * Note the "page_table_lock". It is to protect against kswapd removing
> - * pages from under us. Note that kswapd only ever _removes_ pages, never
> - * adds them. As such, once we have noticed that the page is not present,
> - * we can drop the lock early.
> - *
> + * Note that kswapd only ever _removes_ pages, never adds them.
> + * We need to insure to handle that case properly.
> + *
> * The adding of pages is protected by the MM semaphore (which we hold),
> * so we don't need to worry about a page being suddenly been added into
> * our VM.
> - *
> - * We enter with the pagetable spinlock held, we are supposed to
> - * release it when done.
> */
> static inline int handle_pte_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
> struct vm_area_struct * vma, unsigned long address,
> int write_access, pte_t *pte, pmd_t *pmd)
> {
> pte_t entry;
> + pte_t new_entry;
>
> entry = *pte;
> if (!pte_present(entry)) {
> /*
> * If it truly wasn't present, we know that kswapd
> * and the PTE updates will not touch it later. So
> - * drop the lock.
> + * no need to acquire the page_table_lock.
> */
> if (pte_none(entry))
> - return do_no_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd);
> + return do_no_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd, entry);
> if (pte_file(entry))
> - return do_file_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd);
> + return do_file_page(mm, vma, address, write_access, pte, pmd, entry);
> return do_swap_page(mm, vma, address, pte, pmd, entry, write_access);
> }

I wonder what happens if kswapd, through try_to_unmap_one(), unmap's the
pte right here ?

Aren't we going to proceed with the "pte_mkyoung(entry)" of a potentially
now unmapped pte? Isnt that case possible now?

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site