Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1682513
| From | Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path |
| Date | 2017-07-06 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <u0gT7-6UV-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tT3Hj-3lN-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tT3Hk-3lN-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tZXGN-1Dt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <u0fkn-4Ys-49@gated-at.bofh.it> <u0ggq-67f-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 06/07/2017 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 03:46:59PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> On 05/07/2017 20:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 07:52:33PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> @@ -2294,8 +2295,19 @@ static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence))
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>> - pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>>>> - vmf->address, &ptl);
>
>>>> + ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>> + pte = pte_offset_map(vmf->pmd, vmf->address);
>>>> + if (unlikely(!spin_trylock(ptl))) {
>>>> + pte_unmap(pte);
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> if (vma_has_changed(vmf->vma, vmf->sequence)) {
>>>> pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
>>>> goto out;
>>>
>>> Right, so if you look at my earlier patches you'll see I did something
>>> quite disgusting here.
>>>
>>> Not sure that wants repeating, but I cannot remember why I thought this
>>> deadlock didn't exist anymore.
>>
>> Regarding the deadlock I did face it on my Power victim node, so I guess it
>> is still there, and the stack traces are quiet explicit.
>> Am I missing something here ?
>
> No, you are right in that the deadlock is quite real. What I cannot
> remember is what made me think to remove the really 'wonderful' code I
> had to deal with it.
>
> That said, you might want to look at how often you terminate the
> speculation because of your trylock failing. If that shows up at all we
> might need to do something about it.
Based on the benchmarks I run, it doesn't fail so much often, but I was
thinking about adding some counters here. The system is accounting for
major page faults and minor ones, respectively current->maj_flt and
current->min_flt. I was wondering if an additional type like async_flt will
be welcome or if there is another smarter way to get that metric.
Feel free to advise.
Thanks
Laurent.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-05 21:00 +0200
Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-06 15:50 +0200
Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-06 16:50 +0200
Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-07-06 17:30 +0200
Re: [RFC v5 09/11] mm: Try spin lock in speculative path Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-07-06 18:20 +0200
csiph-web