diff options
author | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2019-12-09 09:48:27 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2020-02-08 11:39:19 -0800 |
commit | 0ddad21d3e99c743a3aa473121dc5561679e26bb (patch) | |
tree | ddd1b61099a17e8afe0074f20130722f99090abf /fs/pipe.c | |
parent | d5226fa6dbae0569ee43ecfc08bdcd6770fc4755 (diff) | |
download | lwn-0ddad21d3e99c743a3aa473121dc5561679e26bb.tar.gz lwn-0ddad21d3e99c743a3aa473121dc5561679e26bb.zip |
pipe: use exclusive waits when reading or writing
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>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/pipe.c')
-rw-r--r-- | fs/pipe.c | 67 |
1 files changed, 44 insertions, 23 deletions
diff --git a/fs/pipe.c b/fs/pipe.c index 57502c3c0fba..5a34d6c22d4c 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 @@ out: * 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: |