lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH AUTOSEL 5.5 542/542] pipe: use exclusive waits when reading or writing
Date
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

[ Upstream commit 0ddad21d3e99c743a3aa473121dc5561679e26bb ]

This makes the pipe code use separate wait-queues and exclusive waiting
for readers and writers, avoiding a nasty thundering herd problem when
there are lots of readers waiting for data on a pipe (or, less commonly,
lots of writers waiting for a pipe to have space).

While this isn't a common occurrence in the traditional "use a pipe as a
data transport" case, where you typically only have a single reader and
a single writer process, there is one common special case: using a pipe
as a source of "locking tokens" rather than for data communication.

In particular, the GNU make jobserver code ends up using a pipe as a way
to limit parallelism, where each job consumes a token by reading a byte
from the jobserver pipe, and releases the token by writing a byte back
to the pipe.

This pattern is fairly traditional on Unix, and works very well, but
will waste a lot of time waking up a lot of processes when only a single
reader needs to be woken up when a writer releases a new token.

A simplified test-case of just this pipe interaction is to create 64
processes, and then pass a single token around between them (this
test-case also intentionally passes another token that gets ignored to
test the "wake up next" logic too, in case anybody wonders about it):

#include <unistd.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int fd[2], counters[2];

pipe(fd);
counters[0] = 0;
counters[1] = -1;
write(fd[1], counters, sizeof(counters));

/* 64 processes */
fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork(); fork();

do {
int i;
read(fd[0], &i, sizeof(i));
if (i < 0)
continue;
counters[0] = i+1;
write(fd[1], counters, (1+(i & 1)) *sizeof(int));
} while (counters[0] < 1000000);
return 0;
}

and in a perfect world, passing that token around should only cause one
context switch per transfer, when the writer of a token causes a
directed wakeup of just a single reader.

But with the "writer wakes all readers" model we traditionally had, on
my test box the above case causes more than an order of magnitude more
scheduling: instead of the expected ~1M context switches, "perf stat"
shows

231,852.37 msec task-clock # 15.857 CPUs utilized
11,250,961 context-switches # 0.049 M/sec
616,304 cpu-migrations # 0.003 M/sec
1,648 page-faults # 0.007 K/sec
1,097,903,998,514 cycles # 4.735 GHz
120,781,778,352 instructions # 0.11 insn per cycle
27,997,056,043 branches # 120.754 M/sec
283,581,233 branch-misses # 1.01% of all branches

14.621273891 seconds time elapsed

0.018243000 seconds user
3.611468000 seconds sys

before this commit.

After this commit, I get

5,229.55 msec task-clock # 3.072 CPUs utilized
1,212,233 context-switches # 0.232 M/sec
103,951 cpu-migrations # 0.020 M/sec
1,328 page-faults # 0.254 K/sec
21,307,456,166 cycles # 4.074 GHz
12,947,819,999 instructions # 0.61 insn per cycle
2,881,985,678 branches # 551.096 M/sec
64,267,015 branch-misses # 2.23% of all branches

1.702148350 seconds time elapsed

0.004868000 seconds user
0.110786000 seconds sys

instead. Much better.

[ Note! This kernel improvement seems to be very good at triggering a
race condition in the make jobserver (in GNU make 4.2.1) for me. It's
a long known bug that was fixed back in June 2017 by GNU make commit
b552b0525198 ("[SV 51159] Use a non-blocking read with pselect to
avoid hangs.").

But there wasn't a new release of GNU make until 4.3 on Jan 19 2020,
so a number of distributions may still have the buggy version. Some
have backported the fix to their 4.2.1 release, though, and even
without the fix it's quite timing-dependent whether the bug actually
is hit. ]

Josh Triplett says:
"I've been hammering on your pipe fix patch (switching to exclusive
wait queues) for a month or so, on several different systems, and I've
run into no issues with it. The patch *substantially* improves
parallel build times on large (~100 CPU) systems, both with parallel
make and with other things that use make's pipe-based jobserver.

All current distributions (including stable and long-term stable
distributions) have versions of GNU make that no longer have the
jobserver bug"

Tested-by: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
fs/coredump.c | 4 +--
fs/pipe.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
fs/splice.c | 8 ++---
include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h | 2 +-
4 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/coredump.c b/fs/coredump.c
index b1ea7dfbd1494..f8296a82d01df 100644
--- a/fs/coredump.c
+++ b/fs/coredump.c
@@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct file *file)
pipe_lock(pipe);
pipe->readers++;
pipe->writers--;
- wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync(&pipe->rd_wait);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
pipe_unlock(pipe);

@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ static void wait_for_dump_helpers(struct file *file)
* We actually want wait_event_freezable() but then we need
* to clear TIF_SIGPENDING and improve dump_interrupted().
*/
- wait_event_interruptible(pipe->wait, pipe->readers == 1);
+ wait_event_interruptible(pipe->rd_wait, pipe->readers == 1);

pipe_lock(pipe);
pipe->readers--;
diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c
index 57502c3c0fba1..5a34d6c22d4ce 100644
--- a/fs/pipe.c
+++ b/fs/pipe.c
@@ -108,16 +108,19 @@ void pipe_double_lock(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe1,
/* Drop the inode semaphore and wait for a pipe event, atomically */
void pipe_wait(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
{
- DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+ DEFINE_WAIT(rdwait);
+ DEFINE_WAIT(wrwait);

/*
* Pipes are system-local resources, so sleeping on them
* is considered a noninteractive wait:
*/
- prepare_to_wait(&pipe->wait, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ prepare_to_wait(&pipe->rd_wait, &rdwait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ prepare_to_wait(&pipe->wr_wait, &wrwait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
pipe_unlock(pipe);
schedule();
- finish_wait(&pipe->wait, &wait);
+ finish_wait(&pipe->rd_wait, &rdwait);
+ finish_wait(&pipe->wr_wait, &wrwait);
pipe_lock(pipe);
}

@@ -286,7 +289,7 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
size_t total_len = iov_iter_count(to);
struct file *filp = iocb->ki_filp;
struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = filp->private_data;
- bool was_full;
+ bool was_full, wake_next_reader = false;
ssize_t ret;

/* Null read succeeds. */
@@ -344,10 +347,10 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)

if (!buf->len) {
pipe_buf_release(pipe, buf);
- spin_lock_irq(&pipe->wait.lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);
tail++;
pipe->tail = tail;
- spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->wait.lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);
}
total_len -= chars;
if (!total_len)
@@ -384,7 +387,7 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
* no data.
*/
if (unlikely(was_full)) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}

@@ -394,18 +397,23 @@ pipe_read(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to)
* since we've done any required wakeups and there's no need
* to mark anything accessed. And we've dropped the lock.
*/
- if (wait_event_interruptible(pipe->wait, pipe_readable(pipe)) < 0)
+ if (wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(pipe->rd_wait, pipe_readable(pipe)) < 0)
return -ERESTARTSYS;

__pipe_lock(pipe);
was_full = pipe_full(pipe->head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage);
+ wake_next_reader = true;
}
+ if (pipe_empty(pipe->head, pipe->tail))
+ wake_next_reader = false;
__pipe_unlock(pipe);

if (was_full) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}
+ if (wake_next_reader)
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
if (ret > 0)
file_accessed(filp);
return ret;
@@ -437,6 +445,7 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
size_t total_len = iov_iter_count(from);
ssize_t chars;
bool was_empty = false;
+ bool wake_next_writer = false;

/* Null write succeeds. */
if (unlikely(total_len == 0))
@@ -515,16 +524,16 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
* it, either the reader will consume it or it'll still
* be there for the next write.
*/
- spin_lock_irq(&pipe->wait.lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);

head = pipe->head;
if (pipe_full(head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage)) {
- spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->wait.lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);
continue;
}

pipe->head = head + 1;
- spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->wait.lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&pipe->rd_wait.lock);

/* Insert it into the buffer array */
buf = &pipe->bufs[head & mask];
@@ -576,14 +585,17 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
*/
__pipe_unlock(pipe);
if (was_empty) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
}
- wait_event_interruptible(pipe->wait, pipe_writable(pipe));
+ wait_event_interruptible_exclusive(pipe->wr_wait, pipe_writable(pipe));
__pipe_lock(pipe);
was_empty = pipe_empty(pipe->head, pipe->tail);
+ wake_next_writer = true;
}
out:
+ if (pipe_full(pipe->head, pipe->tail, pipe->max_usage))
+ wake_next_writer = false;
__pipe_unlock(pipe);

/*
@@ -596,9 +608,11 @@ pipe_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
* wake up pending jobs
*/
if (was_empty) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
}
+ if (wake_next_writer)
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
if (ret > 0 && sb_start_write_trylock(file_inode(filp)->i_sb)) {
int err = file_update_time(filp);
if (err)
@@ -642,12 +656,15 @@ pipe_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
unsigned int head, tail;

/*
- * Reading only -- no need for acquiring the semaphore.
+ * Reading pipe state only -- no need for acquiring the semaphore.
*
* But because this is racy, the code has to add the
* entry to the poll table _first_ ..
*/
- poll_wait(filp, &pipe->wait, wait);
+ if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_READ)
+ poll_wait(filp, &pipe->rd_wait, wait);
+ if (filp->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
+ poll_wait(filp, &pipe->wr_wait, wait);

/*
* .. and only then can you do the racy tests. That way,
@@ -706,7 +723,8 @@ pipe_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
pipe->writers--;

if (pipe->readers || pipe->writers) {
- wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLOUT | EPOLLRDNORM | EPOLLWRNORM | EPOLLERR | EPOLLHUP);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->rd_wait, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM | EPOLLERR | EPOLLHUP);
+ wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&pipe->wr_wait, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM | EPOLLERR | EPOLLHUP);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}
@@ -789,7 +807,8 @@ struct pipe_inode_info *alloc_pipe_info(void)
GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);

if (pipe->bufs) {
- init_waitqueue_head(&pipe->wait);
+ init_waitqueue_head(&pipe->rd_wait);
+ init_waitqueue_head(&pipe->wr_wait);
pipe->r_counter = pipe->w_counter = 1;
pipe->max_usage = pipe_bufs;
pipe->ring_size = pipe_bufs;
@@ -1007,7 +1026,8 @@ static int wait_for_partner(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned int *cnt)

static void wake_up_partner(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
{
- wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->rd_wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wr_wait);
}

static int fifo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
@@ -1118,13 +1138,13 @@ static int fifo_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)

err_rd:
if (!--pipe->readers)
- wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wr_wait);
ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
goto err;

err_wr:
if (!--pipe->writers)
- wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->rd_wait);
ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
goto err;

@@ -1251,7 +1271,8 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
pipe->max_usage = nr_slots;
pipe->tail = tail;
pipe->head = head;
- wake_up_interruptible_all(&pipe->wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible_all(&pipe->rd_wait);
+ wake_up_interruptible_all(&pipe->wr_wait);
return pipe->max_usage * PAGE_SIZE;

out_revert_acct:
diff --git a/fs/splice.c b/fs/splice.c
index 3009652a41c85..d671936d0aad6 100644
--- a/fs/splice.c
+++ b/fs/splice.c
@@ -165,8 +165,8 @@ static const struct pipe_buf_operations user_page_pipe_buf_ops = {
static void wakeup_pipe_readers(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
{
smp_mb();
- if (waitqueue_active(&pipe->wait))
- wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wait);
+ if (waitqueue_active(&pipe->rd_wait))
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->rd_wait);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_readers, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
}

@@ -462,8 +462,8 @@ static int pipe_to_sendpage(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe,
static void wakeup_pipe_writers(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
{
smp_mb();
- if (waitqueue_active(&pipe->wait))
- wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wait);
+ if (waitqueue_active(&pipe->wr_wait))
+ wake_up_interruptible(&pipe->wr_wait);
kill_fasync(&pipe->fasync_writers, SIGIO, POLL_OUT);
}

diff --git a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
index dbcfa68923842..d5765039652a5 100644
--- a/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
+++ b/include/linux/pipe_fs_i.h
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ struct pipe_buffer {
**/
struct pipe_inode_info {
struct mutex mutex;
- wait_queue_head_t wait;
+ wait_queue_head_t rd_wait, wr_wait;
unsigned int head;
unsigned int tail;
unsigned int max_usage;
--
2.20.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-14 17:02    [W:1.279 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site