From patchwork Thu Aug 25 00:05:04 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Shakeel Butt X-Patchwork-Id: 12954098 X-Patchwork-Delegate: kuba@kernel.org Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19362C04AA5 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:05:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230447AbiHYAFc (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 20:05:32 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59526 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230414AbiHYAFa (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 20:05:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1049.google.com (mail-pj1-x1049.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1049]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D293065811 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1049.google.com with SMTP id s10-20020a17090a6e4a00b001fba85daa67so88782pjm.7 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:from:subject:references:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc; bh=X0aXbVnjIsqv6IZlugAyzwT5Jn0BIh8DUeidfr3NTwU=; b=pizx5jtbolFH74HPRP+JXhQp2kt4f4Gvo5c8BahsoqOTkDMpUC21gySwAqRyERcsxp RxiJ7ZTDPE4UhNy7ASniRjeSQfLiOp7A52n7UcNJaRcgoNbt5hJSwRUZ2tkpQ2Q3baJ8 4cQTvaVR9bW07R8J1S2oVdOXktAWKIkD5EuCtdCBJ7DOtVg6boyaG97qE7d++5ICk+ah 2bvtXldISERsWobmMdnkvmtae/Ky7rkElbKgMUHUw96nEyyamlUTC7zNBQtNgsfupFiv 1ehcbs9orlmOrXVk8eSGqQ8mVmxBPOLIJjcaHvhtzjRgZpozbsey811NndPtqmQMB85j qK7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:from:subject:references:mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=X0aXbVnjIsqv6IZlugAyzwT5Jn0BIh8DUeidfr3NTwU=; b=38Qmb027aXxsgUzZQaO633GkgCkcIsxiFJK1c767gmYIJLbuTx/+rBx/LMGizSaEnW /teb03yvGZsiW7KxgkjxVCea6XJREn2Rb2TTAw5GGx0atxV1pZ73zxXCIvM6oVKs2mMm orMW9+zoOWBDBzW2XvOJ6TvXgE6UPLXse1vBzrUVzwXLNlRlU5D1KMlsB1vWRnAPL+PQ c+4W/j+treFiJq3GQHy+CdkYGnsQvrZcgOQviWuBFVA1k58lhbEdn1O6uwd50JlD8qRQ B4fuXFeoe89tr3+Kx5b9D63RvaYod9hD2dlq4NGLUgvbLBLz3ZoHKymlbcFuF24t0xPM TPkA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo02hSGgFoVjbnxFFFuE+7RE8+uVgACjTg1pcIvqCXWSdoIh51CQ JW8l4D6ASKZqhpcvieev2NS3uDFCRWqodQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5XSREtrswBTLHTLhIxt0y3r3MXI7uBpxQYmDyvEFx98x6p9m1M8gUdoBcShWUI0C8PD7kVrWRRQWbPPw== X-Received: from shakeelb.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:262e]) (user=shakeelb job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6a00:4147:b0:52e:2d56:17c8 with SMTP id bv7-20020a056a00414700b0052e2d5617c8mr1426905pfb.51.1661385928246; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 17:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:05:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20220825000506.239406-1-shakeelb@google.com> Message-Id: <20220825000506.239406-2-shakeelb@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <20220825000506.239406-1-shakeelb@google.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: page_counter: remove unneeded atomic ops for low/min From: Shakeel Butt To: Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song Cc: " =?utf-8?q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= " , Eric Dumazet , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , Feng Tang , Oliver Sang , Andrew Morton , lkp@lists.01.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org For cgroups using low or min protections, the function propagate_protected_usage() was doing an atomic xchg() operation irrespectively. We can optimize out this atomic operation for one specific scenario where the workload is using the protection (i.e. min > 0) and the usage is above the protection (i.e. usage > min). This scenario is actually very common where the users want a part of their workload to be protected against the external reclaim. Though this optimization does introduce a race when the usage is around the protection and concurrent charges and uncharged trip it over or under the protection. In such cases, we might see lower effective protection but the subsequent charge/uncharge will correct it. To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top level having min and low setup appropriately to see if this optimization is effective for the mentioned case. $ netserver -6 # 36 instances of netperf with following params $ netperf -6 -H ::1 -l 60 -t TCP_SENDFILE -- -m 10K Results (average throughput of netperf): Without (6.0-rc1) 10482.7 Mbps With patch 14542.5 Mbps (38.7% improvement) With the patch, the throughput improved by 38.7% Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt Reported-by: kernel test robot Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Reviewed-by: Feng Tang Acked-by: Roman Gushchin Acked-by: Michal Hocko --- Changes since v1: - Commit message update with more detail on which scenario is getting optimized and possible race condition. mm/page_counter.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c index eb156ff5d603..47711aa28161 100644 --- a/mm/page_counter.c +++ b/mm/page_counter.c @@ -17,24 +17,23 @@ static void propagate_protected_usage(struct page_counter *c, unsigned long usage) { unsigned long protected, old_protected; - unsigned long low, min; long delta; if (!c->parent) return; - min = READ_ONCE(c->min); - if (min || atomic_long_read(&c->min_usage)) { - protected = min(usage, min); + protected = min(usage, READ_ONCE(c->min)); + old_protected = atomic_long_read(&c->min_usage); + if (protected != old_protected) { old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->min_usage, protected); delta = protected - old_protected; if (delta) atomic_long_add(delta, &c->parent->children_min_usage); } - low = READ_ONCE(c->low); - if (low || atomic_long_read(&c->low_usage)) { - protected = min(usage, low); + protected = min(usage, READ_ONCE(c->low)); + old_protected = atomic_long_read(&c->low_usage); + if (protected != old_protected) { old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->low_usage, protected); delta = protected - old_protected; if (delta)