From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
"npiggin@kernel.dk" <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: [patch V3] percpu_counter: scalability works
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 00:03:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1305324187.3120.30.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1305305190.3866.57.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Shaohua Li reported a scalability problem with many threads doing
mmap()/munmap() calls. vm_committed_as percpu_counter is hitting its
spinlock very hard, if size of mmaped zones are bigger than
percpu_counter batch. We could tune this batch value but better have a
more scalable percpu_counter infrastructure.
Shaohua provided some patches to speedup __percpu_counter_add(), by
removing the need to use a spinlock and use an atomic64_t fbc->count
instead.
Problem of these patches were a possible big deviation seen by
__percpu_counter_sum()
Idea of this patch is to extend Shaohua idea :
We consider _sum() being slow path. We dont try to make it fast [ but
this implementation should be better since we remove the spinlock that
used to serialize _sum() / _add() invocations ]
Add a fbc->sum_cnt, so that _add() can detect a _sum() is in flight, and
directly add to a new atomic64_t field named "fbc->slowcount" (and not
touch its percpu s32 variable so that _sum() can get more accurate
percpu_counter 'Value')
Use an out of line structure to make "struct percpu_count" mostly read
This structure uses its own cache line to reduce false sharing.
Each time one _add() thread overflows its percpu s32 variable, do an
increment of a sequence, so that _sum() can detect at least one cpu
messed the fbc->count and reset its s32 variable.
_sum() can restart its loop, but since sum_cnt is non null, we have
guarantee that the _sum() loop wont be restarted ad infinitum.
_sum() is accurate and not blocking anymore _add() [ It's slowing it a
bit of course since all _add() will touch shared fbc->slowcount ]
On my 2x4x2 cpu (Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5540 @ 2.53GHz) machine, and
64bit kernel, the following bench :
loop (10000000 times) {
p = mmap(128M, ANONYMOUS);
munmap(p, 128M);
}
16 processes started
Before patch:
real 2m14.509s
user 0m13.780s
sys 35m24.170s
After patch:
real 0m34.055s
user 0m17.910s
sys 8m1.680s
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
CC: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
CC: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
---
V3: remove irq masking in __percpu_counter_add()
initialize fbc->sum_cnt in __percpu_counter_init
include/linux/percpu_counter.h | 26 +++++++---
lib/percpu_counter.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
2 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
index 46f6ba5..4aac7f5 100644
--- a/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
+++ b/include/linux/percpu_counter.h
@@ -15,13 +15,25 @@
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-struct percpu_counter {
- spinlock_t lock;
- s64 count;
+/*
+ * For performance reasons, we keep this part in a separate cache line
+ */
+struct percpu_counter_rw {
+ atomic64_t count;
+ unsigned int sequence;
+ atomic64_t slowcount;
+
+ /* since we have plenty room, store list here, even if never used */
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
struct list_head list; /* All percpu_counters are on a list */
+ struct percpu_counter *fbc;
#endif
- s32 __percpu *counters;
+} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
+
+struct percpu_counter {
+ atomic_t sum_cnt; /* count of in flight sum() */
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw;
+ s32 __percpu *counters;
};
extern int percpu_counter_batch;
@@ -60,7 +72,9 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- return fbc->count;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw = fbc->pcrw;
+
+ return atomic64_read(&pcrw->count) + atomic64_read(&pcrw->slowcount);
}
/*
@@ -70,7 +84,7 @@ static inline s64 percpu_counter_read(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
*/
static inline s64 percpu_counter_read_positive(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
- s64 ret = fbc->count;
+ s64 ret = percpu_counter_read(fbc);
barrier(); /* Prevent reloads of fbc->count */
if (ret >= 0)
diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c
index 28f2c33..ff486b2 100644
--- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/debugobjects.h>
+#include <linux/slab.h>
static LIST_HEAD(percpu_counters);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(percpu_counters_lock);
@@ -58,28 +59,33 @@ static inline void debug_percpu_counter_deactivate(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
void percpu_counter_set(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount)
{
int cpu;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw = fbc->pcrw;
- spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
*pcount = 0;
}
- fbc->count = amount;
- spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+ atomic64_set(&pcrw->count, amount);
+ atomic64_set(&pcrw->slowcount, 0);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set);
void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32 batch)
{
s64 count;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw = fbc->pcrw;
+
+ if (atomic_read(&fbc->sum_cnt)) {
+ atomic64_add(amount, &pcrw->slowcount);
+ return;
+ }
preempt_disable();
count = __this_cpu_read(*fbc->counters) + amount;
if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) {
- spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
- fbc->count += count;
+ atomic64_add(count, &pcrw->count);
+ pcrw->sequence++;
__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0);
- spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
} else {
__this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count);
}
@@ -95,14 +101,25 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
{
s64 ret;
int cpu;
+ unsigned int seq;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw = fbc->pcrw;
- spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
- ret = fbc->count;
- for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
- s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
- ret += *pcount;
- }
- spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
+ atomic_inc(&fbc->sum_cnt);
+ do {
+ seq = pcrw->sequence;
+ smp_rmb();
+
+ ret = atomic64_read(&pcrw->count);
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ s32 *pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
+ ret += *pcount;
+ }
+
+ smp_rmb();
+ } while (pcrw->sequence != seq);
+
+ atomic_dec(&fbc->sum_cnt);
+ ret += atomic64_read(&pcrw->slowcount);
return ret;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
@@ -110,19 +127,28 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_sum);
int __percpu_counter_init(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount,
struct lock_class_key *key)
{
- spin_lock_init(&fbc->lock);
- lockdep_set_class(&fbc->lock, key);
- fbc->count = amount;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw;
+
+ pcrw = kzalloc(sizeof(*pcrw), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (!pcrw)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ atomic64_set(&pcrw->count, amount);
+
fbc->counters = alloc_percpu(s32);
- if (!fbc->counters)
+ if (!fbc->counters) {
+ kfree(pcrw);
return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ fbc->pcrw = pcrw;
+ atomic_set(&fbc->sum_cnt, 0);
debug_percpu_counter_activate(fbc);
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fbc->list);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pcrw->list);
+ pcrw->fbc = fbc;
mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
- list_add(&fbc->list, &percpu_counters);
+ list_add(&pcrw->list, &percpu_counters);
mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
#endif
return 0;
@@ -138,11 +164,13 @@ void percpu_counter_destroy(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
- list_del(&fbc->list);
+ list_del(&fbc->pcrw->list);
mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
#endif
free_percpu(fbc->counters);
fbc->counters = NULL;
+ kfree(fbc->pcrw);
+ fbc->pcrw = NULL;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_destroy);
@@ -161,7 +189,7 @@ static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
{
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
unsigned int cpu;
- struct percpu_counter *fbc;
+ struct percpu_counter_rw *pcrw;
compute_batch_value();
if (action != CPU_DEAD)
@@ -169,15 +197,12 @@ static int __cpuinit percpu_counter_hotcpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
mutex_lock(&percpu_counters_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(fbc, &percpu_counters, list) {
+ list_for_each_entry(pcrw, &percpu_counters, list) {
s32 *pcount;
- unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags);
- pcount = per_cpu_ptr(fbc->counters, cpu);
- fbc->count += *pcount;
+ pcount = per_cpu_ptr(pcrw->fbc->counters, cpu);
+ atomic64_add(*pcount, &pcrw->count);
*pcount = 0;
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags);
}
mutex_unlock(&percpu_counters_lock);
#endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-13 22:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-11 8:10 [patch v2 0/5] percpu_counter: bug fix and enhancement Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 8:10 ` [patch v2 1/5] percpu_counter: fix code for 32bit systems for UP Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 8:10 ` [patch v2 2/5] lglock: convert it to work with dynamically allocated structure Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 8:10 ` [patch v2 3/5] percpu_counter: use lglock to protect percpu data Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 8:10 ` [patch v2 4/5] percpu_counter: use atomic64 for counter in SMP Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 9:34 ` Andrew Morton
2011-05-12 2:40 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 8:10 ` [patch v2 5/5] percpu_counter: preemptless __per_cpu_counter_add Shaohua Li
2011-05-11 9:28 ` [patch v2 0/5] percpu_counter: bug fix and enhancement Tejun Heo
2011-05-12 2:48 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-12 8:21 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-12 8:55 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-12 8:59 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-12 9:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-12 9:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-12 9:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-13 3:09 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-13 4:37 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-13 5:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 5:28 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-13 6:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 7:33 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-13 14:51 ` [patch] percpu_counter: scalability works Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 15:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 16:35 ` [patch V2] " Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 16:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-13 22:03 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2011-05-16 0:58 ` [patch V3] " Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 6:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-16 6:37 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 6:55 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-16 7:15 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 7:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-16 8:34 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 9:35 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-16 14:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 0:55 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-17 4:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 5:22 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-17 9:01 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 9:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 9:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 9:50 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 12:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 12:45 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 13:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2011-05-17 13:04 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 13:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-05-17 14:02 ` Tejun Heo
2011-05-17 14:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-05-18 1:00 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-12 14:38 ` [patch v2 0/5] percpu_counter: bug fix and enhancement Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1305324187.3120.30.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®