diff options
author | Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com> | 2016-01-14 15:18:36 -0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2016-01-14 16:00:49 -0800 |
commit | 4a8c7bb59ac85b038c29adf6d32ff56e11fbb267 (patch) | |
tree | 76ded28807d90dab68c27f1d33412209be004d27 /mm/mempolicy.c | |
parent | 8f235d1a3eb7198affe7cadf676a10afb8a46a1a (diff) | |
download | lwn-4a8c7bb59ac85b038c29adf6d32ff56e11fbb267.tar.gz lwn-4a8c7bb59ac85b038c29adf6d32ff56e11fbb267.zip |
mm/mempolicy.c: convert the shared_policy lock to a rwlock
When running the SPECint_rate gcc on some very large boxes it was
noticed that the system was spending lots of time in
mpol_shared_policy_lookup(). The gamess benchmark can also show it and
is what I mostly used to chase down the issue since the setup for that I
found to be easier.
To be clear the binaries were on tmpfs because of disk I/O requirements.
We then used text replication to avoid icache misses and having all the
copies banging on the memory where the instruction code resides. This
results in us hitting a bottleneck in mpol_shared_policy_lookup() since
lookup is serialised by the shared_policy lock.
I have only reproduced this on very large (3k+ cores) boxes. The
problem starts showing up at just a few hundred ranks getting worse
until it threatens to livelock once it gets large enough. For example
on the gamess benchmark at 128 ranks this area consumes only ~1% of
time, at 512 ranks it consumes nearly 13%, and at 2k ranks it is over
90%.
To alleviate the contention in this area I converted the spinlock to an
rwlock. This allows a large number of lookups to happen simultaneously.
The results were quite good reducing this consumtion at max ranks to
around 2%.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: tidy up code comments]
Signed-off-by: Nathan Zimmer <nzimmer@sgi.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Nadia Yvette Chambers <nyc@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm/mempolicy.c')
-rw-r--r-- | mm/mempolicy.c | 30 |
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c index 87a177917cb2..d8caff071a30 100644 --- a/mm/mempolicy.c +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c @@ -2142,12 +2142,14 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b) * * Remember policies even when nobody has shared memory mapped. * The policies are kept in Red-Black tree linked from the inode. - * They are protected by the sp->lock spinlock, which should be held + * They are protected by the sp->lock rwlock, which should be held * for any accesses to the tree. */ -/* lookup first element intersecting start-end */ -/* Caller holds sp->lock */ +/* + * lookup first element intersecting start-end. Caller holds sp->lock for + * reading or for writing + */ static struct sp_node * sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end) { @@ -2178,8 +2180,10 @@ sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end) return rb_entry(n, struct sp_node, nd); } -/* Insert a new shared policy into the list. */ -/* Caller holds sp->lock */ +/* + * Insert a new shared policy into the list. Caller holds sp->lock for + * writing. + */ static void sp_insert(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *new) { struct rb_node **p = &sp->root.rb_node; @@ -2211,13 +2215,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx) if (!sp->root.rb_node) return NULL; - spin_lock(&sp->lock); + read_lock(&sp->lock); sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1); if (sn) { mpol_get(sn->policy); pol = sn->policy; } - spin_unlock(&sp->lock); + read_unlock(&sp->lock); return pol; } @@ -2360,7 +2364,7 @@ static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, int ret = 0; restart: - spin_lock(&sp->lock); + write_lock(&sp->lock); n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end); /* Take care of old policies in the same range. */ while (n && n->start < end) { @@ -2393,7 +2397,7 @@ restart: } if (new) sp_insert(sp, new); - spin_unlock(&sp->lock); + write_unlock(&sp->lock); ret = 0; err_out: @@ -2405,7 +2409,7 @@ err_out: return ret; alloc_new: - spin_unlock(&sp->lock); + write_unlock(&sp->lock); ret = -ENOMEM; n_new = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL); if (!n_new) @@ -2431,7 +2435,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol) int ret; sp->root = RB_ROOT; /* empty tree == default mempolicy */ - spin_lock_init(&sp->lock); + rwlock_init(&sp->lock); if (mpol) { struct vm_area_struct pvma; @@ -2497,14 +2501,14 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p) if (!p->root.rb_node) return; - spin_lock(&p->lock); + write_lock(&p->lock); next = rb_first(&p->root); while (next) { n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd); next = rb_next(&n->nd); sp_delete(p, n); } - spin_unlock(&p->lock); + write_unlock(&p->lock); } #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING |