lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Move struct file RCU handling into the slab allocator?
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 12:48:35PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Currently we schedule RCU frees for each file we free separately. That has
> several drawback against the earlier file handling (in 2.6.5 f.e.) that did
> not require RCU callbacks.
>
> 1. Excessive number of RCU callbacks can be generated causing long RCU
> queues that in turn cause long latencies.
>
> 2. The cache hot object is not preserved between free and realloc. A close
> followed by another open is very fast with the RCU less approach because
> the last freed object is returned by the slab allocator that is
> still cache hot. RCU free means that the object is not immediately
> available again. The new object is cache cold and therefore open/close
> performance tests show a significant degradation with the RCU
> implementation.
>
> One solution to this problem is to move the RCU freeing into the Slab
> allocator by specifying SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU as an option at slab creation
> time. The slab allocator will do RCU frees only when it is necessary
> to dispose of whole pages of objects (very rare). So with that approach
> we can cut out the RCU overhead almost completely.
>
> However, the slab allocator may return the object for another use even
> before the RCU period has expired under SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU. This means
> there is the very unlikely possibility that the object is going to be
> switched under us in sections protected by rcu_read_lock() and
> rcu_read_unlock(). So we need to verify that we have acquired the correct
> object after establishing a stable object reference (incrementing the
> refcounter does that).

The general approach of rechecking validity after obtaining a reference
is workable, though you do have to be quite careful. I am not a fdtable
expert, but questions and comments interspersed below. I do have some
concerns about some of the filesystem code (hfs, hfsplus, affs), but
must defer to experts in those areas.

Dipankar, do you have a test suite for this sort of change?

Careful performance testing is needed as well, the validity check does
appear to me to be pretty lightweight, but this stuff is a bit sensitive
to performance.

Thanx, Paul

> I am not that familiar with struct file handling so I may have
> left something out or overdone something else. We can certainly optimize
> the way we check that we have received the correct object. Also the
> constructor sets up only a few fields. It would probably be possible
> to move more initializations into the constructor which may reduce the
> cachelines touched for the open/close case . And then there is the
> question if the identication of the object is safe the way it is right now.
>
> One question is if the overhead of the additional checks offsets the
> benefit we get through reduced RCU processing.
>
> I have tested this on IA64 NUMA with aim7.
>
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/include/linux/fs.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/include/linux/fs.h 2006-06-16 11:48:51.787882358 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/include/linux/fs.h 2006-06-16 12:06:59.669735223 -0700
> @@ -718,14 +718,7 @@ struct file_ra_state {
> #define RA_FLAG_EOF (1UL<<27) /* readahead hits EOF */
>
> struct file {
> - /*
> - * fu_list becomes invalid after file_free is called and queued via
> - * fu_rcuhead for RCU freeing
> - */
> - union {
> - struct list_head fu_list;
> - struct rcu_head fu_rcuhead;
> - } f_u;
> + struct list_head fu_list;

Some one less than a philistine than I might argue that this should
go back to the original name of f_list. ;-)

> struct dentry *f_dentry;
> struct vfsmount *f_vfsmnt;
> const struct file_operations *f_op;
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/file_table.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/fs/file_table.c 2006-06-16 11:48:49.092736849 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/file_table.c 2006-06-16 12:18:40.947608303 -0700
> @@ -36,16 +36,10 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLO
>
> static struct percpu_counter nr_files __cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
>
> -static inline void file_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> -{
> - struct file *f = container_of(head, struct file, f_u.fu_rcuhead);
> - kmem_cache_free(filp_cachep, f);
> -}
> -
> static inline void file_free(struct file *f)
> {
> percpu_counter_dec(&nr_files);
> - call_rcu(&f->f_u.fu_rcuhead, file_free_rcu);
> + kmem_cache_free(filp_cachep, f);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -110,16 +104,21 @@ struct file *get_empty_filp(void)
> goto fail;
>
> percpu_counter_inc(&nr_files);
> - memset(f, 0, sizeof(*f));

Why are we replacing the memset with assignments to all members?
Ah, because the someone might be accessing it from an earlier
incarnation. OK, good.

> if (security_file_alloc(f))
> goto fail_sec;
> -
> + f->f_dentry = NULL;
> + f->f_vfsmnt = NULL;
> + f->f_op = NULL;
> + f->f_flags = 0;
> + f->f_pos = 0;
> + f->f_version = 0;
> + f->private_data = NULL;
> + f->f_mapping = NULL;
> + atomic_inc(&f->f_count);

And the atomic_inc() is now also needed to handle someone accessing
this from an earlier incarnation. Good.

o The fact that AIO holds a reference throughout should
prevent destructive races with __aio_put_req().

o Not sure whether hfs_file_release()s check for zero f_count
still works, but am quite concerned. HFS experts?

o Ditto for hfsplus_file_release(). And for affs_file_release().

o I have no idea why the "file->f_count++" in nlmsvc_create_block()
is safe. Is this a situation where no one else has a reference
to the corresponding structure? Oh, because it is from a
struct nlm_file rather than a struct file... Never mind!!!

Guess it wouldn't compile anyway if it were a struct file.

o Ditto for nlm_lookup_file().

o The get_file() macro is presumably only used in cases where
we already have a reference to the file -- otherwise we would
have had a pre-existing bug anyway.

o I am a bit concerned about the check in ppp_ioctl(), but
have great sympathy with the comment saying that we should
get rid of PPPIOCDETACH... However, we must hold at least
one reference to get here, so this change does not introduce
new bugs, as far as I can tell.

> tsk = current;
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&f->f_u.fu_list);
> - atomic_set(&f->f_count, 1);
> - rwlock_init(&f->f_owner.lock);
> f->f_uid = tsk->fsuid;
> f->f_gid = tsk->fsgid;
> + f->f_owner.signum = 0;
> eventpoll_init_file(f);
> /* f->f_version: 0 */
> return f;
> @@ -203,6 +202,14 @@ struct file fastcall *fget(unsigned int
> rcu_read_unlock();
> return NULL;
> }
> + /*
> + * Now we have a stable reference to an object.
> + * Check if RCU switched it from under us.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(file != fcheck_files(files, fd))) {
> + put_filp(file);
> + file = NULL;
> + }
> }

Fair enough -- though I don't know enough to say whether there might
be a better way to recheck than fcheck_files(). Looks pretty light
weight to me... But some serious benchmarking with various workloads
might be good.

> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> @@ -230,8 +237,17 @@ struct file fastcall *fget_light(unsigne
> rcu_read_lock();
> file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
> if (file) {
> - if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&file->f_count))
> - *fput_needed = 1;
> + if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&file->f_count)) {
> + /*
> + * Now we have a stable reference to an object.
> + * Check if RCU switched it from under us.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(file != fcheck_files(files, fd))) {
> + put_filp(file);
> + file = NULL;
> + } else
> + *fput_needed = 1;
> + }
> else
> /* Didn't get the reference, someone's freed */
> file = NULL;

OK, in the unshared case, we still cannot see a concurrent close().
So both fget() and fget_light() seem to be doing the right thing here.

> @@ -257,15 +273,15 @@ void file_move(struct file *file, struct
> if (!list)
> return;
> file_list_lock();
> - list_move(&file->f_u.fu_list, list);
> + list_move(&file->fu_list, list);
> file_list_unlock();
> }
>
> void file_kill(struct file *file)
> {
> - if (!list_empty(&file->f_u.fu_list)) {
> + if (!list_empty(&file->fu_list)) {
> file_list_lock();
> - list_del_init(&file->f_u.fu_list);
> + list_del_init(&file->fu_list);
> file_list_unlock();
> }
> }
> @@ -277,7 +293,7 @@ int fs_may_remount_ro(struct super_block
> /* Check that no files are currently opened for writing. */
> file_list_lock();
> list_for_each(p, &sb->s_files) {
> - struct file *file = list_entry(p, struct file, f_u.fu_list);
> + struct file *file = list_entry(p, struct file, fu_list);
> struct inode *inode = file->f_dentry->d_inode;

The above are just the name changes, good.

> /* File with pending delete? */
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/dcache.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/fs/dcache.c 2006-06-16 11:48:48.999969160 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/dcache.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.671688227 -0700
> @@ -1800,6 +1800,21 @@ void __init vfs_caches_init_early(void)
> inode_init_early();
> }
>
> +static void filp_constructor(void *data, struct kmem_cache *cachep,
> + unsigned long flags)
> +{
> + struct file *f = data;
> +
> + if ((flags & (SLAB_CTOR_VERIFY|SLAB_CTOR_CONSTRUCTOR)) !=
> + SLAB_CTOR_CONSTRUCTOR)
> + return;
> +
> + memset(f, 0, sizeof(*f));
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&f->fu_list);
> + atomic_set(&f->f_count, 0);
> + rwlock_init(&f->f_owner.lock);

I understand the atomic_set(), but not clear to me that the others need be
done in the constructor. Also not clear that it hurts.

> +}
> +
> void __init vfs_caches_init(unsigned long mempages)
> {
> unsigned long reserve;
> @@ -1814,7 +1829,8 @@ void __init vfs_caches_init(unsigned lon
> SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC, NULL, NULL);
>
> filp_cachep = kmem_cache_create("filp", sizeof(struct file), 0,
> - SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC, NULL, NULL);
> + SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN|SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU,
> + filp_constructor, NULL);

OK.

> dcache_init(mempages);
> inode_init(mempages);
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/drivers/char/tty_io.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2006-06-16 11:48:45.303909104 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/drivers/char/tty_io.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.673641231 -0700
> @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static void do_tty_hangup(void *data)
> check_tty_count(tty, "do_tty_hangup");
> file_list_lock();
> /* This breaks for file handles being sent over AF_UNIX sockets ? */
> - list_for_each_entry(filp, &tty->tty_files, f_u.fu_list) {
> + list_for_each_entry(filp, &tty->tty_files, fu_list) {
> if (filp->f_op->write == redirected_tty_write)
> cons_filp = filp;
> if (filp->f_op->write != tty_write)
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/dquot.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/fs/dquot.c 2006-06-16 11:48:49.043911749 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/dquot.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.674617733 -0700
> @@ -693,7 +693,7 @@ static void add_dquot_ref(struct super_b
> restart:
> file_list_lock();
> list_for_each(p, &sb->s_files) {
> - struct file *filp = list_entry(p, struct file, f_u.fu_list);
> + struct file *filp = list_entry(p, struct file, fu_list);
> struct inode *inode = filp->f_dentry->d_inode;
> if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE && dqinit_needed(inode, type)) {
> struct dentry *dentry = dget(filp->f_dentry);
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c 2006-06-16 11:48:53.136431615 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/security/selinux/selinuxfs.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.676570737 -0700
> @@ -966,7 +966,7 @@ static void sel_remove_bools(struct dent
>
> file_list_lock();
> list_for_each(p, &sb->s_files) {
> - struct file * filp = list_entry(p, struct file, f_u.fu_list);
> + struct file * filp = list_entry(p, struct file, fu_list);
> struct dentry * dentry = filp->f_dentry;
>
> if (dentry->d_parent != de) {
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/super.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/fs/super.c 2006-06-16 11:48:49.739181171 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/super.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.676570737 -0700
> @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ static void mark_files_ro(struct super_b
> struct file *f;
>
> file_list_lock();
> - list_for_each_entry(f, &sb->s_files, f_u.fu_list) {
> + list_for_each_entry(f, &sb->s_files, fu_list) {
> if (S_ISREG(f->f_dentry->d_inode->i_mode) && file_count(f))
> f->f_mode &= ~FMODE_WRITE;
> }
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/security/selinux/hooks.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-06-16 11:48:53.130572603 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/security/selinux/hooks.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.678523741 -0700
> @@ -1614,7 +1614,7 @@ static inline void flush_unauthorized_fi
>
> if (tty) {
> file_list_lock();
> - file = list_entry(tty->tty_files.next, typeof(*file), f_u.fu_list);
> + file = list_entry(tty->tty_files.next, typeof(*file), fu_list);
> if (file) {
> /* Revalidate access to controlling tty.
> Use inode_has_perm on the tty inode directly rather
> Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/proc/generic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/fs/proc/generic.c 2006-06-05 17:57:02.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/fs/proc/generic.c 2006-06-16 12:06:59.679500243 -0700
> @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static void proc_kill_inodes(struct proc
> */
> file_list_lock();
> list_for_each(p, &sb->s_files) {
> - struct file * filp = list_entry(p, struct file, f_u.fu_list);
> + struct file * filp = list_entry(p, struct file, fu_list);
> struct dentry * dentry = filp->f_dentry;
> struct inode * inode;
> const struct file_operations *fops;

More name changes. OK.
-
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: 2006-06-17 23:39    [W:0.062 / U:63.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site