From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: akpm@osdl.org
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
Simon Derr <Simon.Derr@bull.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Subject: [PATCH 02/04] Cpuset: use rcu directly optimization
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:40:37 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051214084037.21054.4269.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051214084031.21054.13829.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com>
Optimize the cpuset impact on page allocation, the most
performance critical cpuset hook in the kernel.
On each page allocation, the cpuset hook needs to check for a
possible change in the current tasks cpuset. It can now handle
the common case, of no change, without taking any spinlock or
semaphore, thanks to RCU.
Convert a spinlock on the current task to an rcu_read_lock(),
saving approximately a memory barrier and an atomic op, depending
on architecture.
This is done by adding rcu_assign_pointer() and synchronize_rcu()
calls to the write side of the task->cpuset pointer, in
cpuset.c:attach_task(), to delay freeing up a detached cpuset
until after any critical sections referencing that pointer.
Thanks to Andi Kleen, Nick Piggin and Eric Dumazet for ideas.
Signed-off-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
---
kernel/cpuset.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- 2.6.15-rc3-mm1.orig/kernel/cpuset.c 2005-12-13 16:49:01.767509666 -0800
+++ 2.6.15-rc3-mm1/kernel/cpuset.c 2005-12-13 17:19:37.989982316 -0800
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@
#include <linux/namei.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
#include <linux/sched.h>
#include <linux/seq_file.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
@@ -248,6 +249,11 @@ static struct super_block *cpuset_sb;
* a tasks cpuset pointer we use task_lock(), which acts on a spinlock
* (task->alloc_lock) already in the task_struct routinely used for
* such matters.
+ *
+ * P.S. One more locking exception. RCU is used to guard the
+ * update of a tasks cpuset pointer by attach_task() and the
+ * access of task->cpuset->mems_generation via that pointer in
+ * the routine cpuset_update_task_memory_state().
*/
static DECLARE_MUTEX(manage_sem);
@@ -610,12 +616,24 @@ static void guarantee_online_mems(const
* cpuset pointer. This routine also might acquire callback_sem and
* current->mm->mmap_sem during call.
*
- * The task_lock() is required to dereference current->cpuset safely.
- * Without it, we could pick up the pointer value of current->cpuset
- * in one instruction, and then attach_task could give us a different
- * cpuset, and then the cpuset we had could be removed and freed,
- * and then on our next instruction, we could dereference a no longer
- * valid cpuset pointer to get its mems_generation field.
+ * Reading current->cpuset->mems_generation doesn't need task_lock
+ * to guard the current->cpuset derefence, because it is guarded
+ * from concurrent freeing of current->cpuset by attach_task(),
+ * using RCU.
+ *
+ * The rcu_dereference() is technically probably not needed,
+ * as I don't actually mind if I see a new cpuset pointer but
+ * an old value of mems_generation. However this really only
+ * matters on alpha systems using cpusets heavily. If I dropped
+ * that rcu_dereference(), it would save them a memory barrier.
+ * For all other arch's, rcu_dereference is a no-op anyway, and for
+ * alpha systems not using cpusets, another planned optimization,
+ * avoiding the rcu critical section for tasks in the root cpuset
+ * which is statically allocated, so can't vanish, will make this
+ * irrelevant. Better to use RCU as intended, than to engage in
+ * some cute trick to save a memory barrier that is impossible to
+ * test, for alpha systems using cpusets heavily, which might not
+ * even exist.
*
* This routine is needed to update the per-task mems_allowed data,
* within the tasks context, when it is trying to allocate memory
@@ -627,11 +645,12 @@ void cpuset_update_task_memory_state()
{
int my_cpusets_mem_gen;
struct task_struct *tsk = current;
- struct cpuset *cs = tsk->cpuset;
+ struct cpuset *cs;
- task_lock(tsk);
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ cs = rcu_dereference(tsk->cpuset);
my_cpusets_mem_gen = cs->mems_generation;
- task_unlock(tsk);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
if (my_cpusets_mem_gen != tsk->cpuset_mems_generation) {
down(&callback_sem);
@@ -1131,7 +1150,7 @@ static int attach_task(struct cpuset *cs
return -ESRCH;
}
atomic_inc(&cs->count);
- tsk->cpuset = cs;
+ rcu_assign_pointer(tsk->cpuset, cs);
task_unlock(tsk);
guarantee_online_cpus(cs, &cpus);
@@ -1151,6 +1170,7 @@ static int attach_task(struct cpuset *cs
if (is_memory_migrate(cs))
do_migrate_pages(tsk->mm, &from, &to, MPOL_MF_MOVE_ALL);
put_task_struct(tsk);
+ synchronize_rcu();
if (atomic_dec_and_test(&oldcs->count))
check_for_release(oldcs, ppathbuf);
return 0;
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-14 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-14 8:40 [PATCH 01/04] Cpuset: remove rcu slab cache optimization Paul Jackson
2005-12-14 8:40 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2005-12-16 17:55 ` [PATCH 02/04] Cpuset: use rcu directly optimization Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-16 20:22 ` Paul Jackson
2005-12-14 8:40 ` [PATCH 03/04] Cpuset: mark number_of_cpusets read_mostly Paul Jackson
2005-12-14 8:40 ` [PATCH 04/04] Cpuset: skip rcu check if task is in root cpuset Paul Jackson
2005-12-16 17:52 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-16 20:06 ` Paul Jackson
2005-12-17 16:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2005-12-19 14:48 ` Paul Jackson
2005-12-19 16:04 ` CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT (was: [PATCH 04/04] Cpuset: skip rcu check ...) Paul Jackson
2005-12-19 16:39 ` Greg Edwards
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=20051214084037.21054.4269.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=Simon.Derr@bull.net \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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
Powered by JetHome