lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] memory subsystem: cache memory blocks in radix tree to accelerate lookup
Date
Searching for a particular memory block by id is slow because each block
device is kept in an unsorted linked list on the subsystem bus.

Lookup is much faster if we cache the blocks in a radix tree. Memory
subsystem initialization and hotplug/hotunplug is at least a little faster
for any machine with more than ~100 blocks, and the speedup grows with
the block count.

Signed-off-by: Scott Cheloha <cheloha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
On a 40GB Power9 VM I'm seeing nice initialization speed improvements
consistent with the change in data structure. Here's the per-block
timings before the patch:

# uptime elapsed block-id
0.005121 0.000033 0
0.005154 0.000028 1
0.005182 0.000035 2
0.005217 0.000030 3
0.005247 0.000039 4
0.005286 0.000031 5
0.005317 0.000030 6
0.005347 0.000031 7
0.005378 0.000030 8
0.005408 0.000031 9
[...]
0.091603 0.000143 999
0.091746 0.000175 1000
0.091921 0.000143 1001
0.092064 0.000142 1002
0.092206 0.000143 1003
0.092349 0.000143 1004
0.092492 0.000143 1005
0.092635 0.000144 1006
0.092779 0.000143 1007
0.092922 0.000144 1008
[...]
0.301879 0.000258 2038
0.302137 0.000267 2039
0.302404 0.000291 2040
0.302695 0.000259 2041
0.302954 0.000258 2042
0.303212 0.000259 2043
0.303471 0.000260 2044
0.303731 0.000258 2045
0.303989 0.000259 2046
0.304248 0.000260 2047

Obviously a linear growth with each block.

With the patch:

# uptime elapsed block-id
0.004701 0.000029 0
0.004730 0.000028 1
0.004758 0.000028 2
0.004786 0.000027 3
0.004813 0.000037 4
0.004850 0.000027 5
0.004877 0.000027 6
0.004904 0.000027 7
0.004931 0.000026 8
0.004957 0.000027 9
[...]
0.032718 0.000027 999
0.032745 0.000027 1000
0.032772 0.000026 1001
0.032798 0.000027 1002
0.032825 0.000027 1003
0.032852 0.000026 1004
0.032878 0.000027 1005
0.032905 0.000027 1006
0.032932 0.000026 1007
0.032958 0.000027 1008
[...]
0.061148 0.000027 2038
0.061175 0.000027 2039
0.061202 0.000026 2040
0.061228 0.000027 2041
0.061255 0.000027 2042
0.061282 0.000026 2043
0.061308 0.000027 2044
0.061335 0.000026 2045
0.061361 0.000026 2046
0.061387 0.000027 2047

It flattens out.

I'm seeing similar changes on my development PC but the numbers are
less drastic because the block size on a PC grows with the amount
of memory. On powerpc the gains are a lot more visible because the
block size tops out at 256MB.

drivers/base/memory.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
index 84c4e1f72cbd..fc0a4880c321 100644
--- a/drivers/base/memory.c
+++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
#include <linux/memory_hotplug.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/mutex.h>
+#include <linux/radix-tree.h>
#include <linux/stat.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>

@@ -59,6 +60,13 @@ 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 RADIX_TREE(memory_block_tree, GFP_KERNEL);
+
static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(memory_chain);

int register_memory_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
@@ -580,20 +588,14 @@ 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 = radix_tree_lookup(&memory_block_tree, 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));
@@ -636,9 +638,15 @@ 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 = radix_tree_insert(&memory_block_tree, memory->dev.id, memory);
+ if (ret) {
+ put_device(&memory->dev);
+ device_unregister(&memory->dev);
+ }
return ret;
}

@@ -696,6 +704,8 @@ static void unregister_memory(struct memory_block *memory)
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(memory->dev.bus != &memory_subsys))
return;

+ WARN_ON(radix_tree_delete(&memory_block_tree, memory->dev.id) == NULL);
+
/* drop the ref. we got via find_memory_block() */
put_device(&memory->dev);
device_unregister(&memory->dev);
@@ -851,20 +861,21 @@ void __init memory_dev_init(void)
int walk_memory_blocks(unsigned long start, unsigned long size,
void *arg, walk_memory_blocks_func_t func)
{
- const unsigned long start_block_id = phys_to_block_id(start);
- const unsigned long end_block_id = phys_to_block_id(start + size - 1);
+ struct radix_tree_iter iter;
+ const unsigned long start_id = phys_to_block_id(start);
+ const unsigned long end_id = phys_to_block_id(start + size - 1);
struct memory_block *mem;
- unsigned long block_id;
+ void **slot;
int ret = 0;

if (!size)
return 0;

- for (block_id = start_block_id; block_id <= end_block_id; block_id++) {
- mem = find_memory_block_by_id(block_id);
- if (!mem)
- continue;
-
+ radix_tree_for_each_slot(slot, &memory_block_tree, &iter, start_id) {
+ mem = radix_tree_deref_slot(slot);
+ if (mem->dev.id > end_id)
+ break;
+ get_device(&mem->dev);
ret = func(mem, arg);
put_device(&mem->dev);
if (ret)
--
2.24.0.rc1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-20 20:27    [W:0.200 / U:11.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site