Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:57:05 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: silence soft lockups from unlock_page
Message-ID: <20200726135705.GA14017@redhat.com>
References: <CAHk-=whQK3OGwExTzCrwwvuuVaQAgs8KsR-Yv8m1BmXoNZZ=jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.11.2007231549540.1016@eggly.anvils>
 <CAHk-=wgvGOnMF0ePU4xS236bOsP8jouj3rps+ysCaGXvCjh2Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200724152424.GC17209@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=whuG+5pUeUqdiW4gk0prvqu7GZSMo-6oWv5PdDC5dBr=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjYHvbOs9i39EnUsC6VEJiuJ2e_5gZB5-J5CRKxq80B_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200725101445.GB3870@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=whSJbODMVmxxDs64f7BaESKWuMqOxWGpjUSDn6Jzqa71g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200725192753.GA21962@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgpdbxaWWxOeVeA-eTex6QcSZLK9S2=eSv6KbQdPapfug@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgpdbxaWWxOeVeA-eTex6QcSZLK9S2=eSv6KbQdPapfug@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Linus,

I was greatly confused and tried to confuse you.

Somehow I misunderstood your last version and didn't bother to read it
again until now.

Sorry for noise and thanks for your explanations.

Oleg.


On 07/25, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 12:28 PM Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > What I tried to say. AFAICS before that commit we had (almost) the same
> > behaviour you propose now: unlock_page/etc wakes all the non-exclusive
> > waiters up.
> >
> > No?
>
> Yes, but no.
>
> We'd wake them _up_ fairly aggressively, but then they'd be caught on
> the bit being set again by the exclusive locker (that we also woke
> up).
>
> So they'd get woken up, and then go to sleep again.
>
> So the new behavior wakes things up more aggressively (but a different
> way), but not by letting them go out of order and early, but simply by
> not going back to sleep again.
>
> So the "wake up more" is very different - now it's about not going to
> sleep again, rather than by ordering the wakeup queue.
>
> We _could_ order the wakeup queue too, and put all non-exclusive
> weiters at the head again. And make it *really* aggressive.
>
> But since one of ourissues has been "latency of walking the wait
> queue", I'm not sure we want that. interspesing any blocking waiters -
> and stopping the waitqueue walking as a result - might be better under
> load.
>
> Wild handwaving. We could try it, but IO think that really would be a
> separate "try this out" patch.
>
> Right now, I think my patch will likely make for _better_ latencies
> for everything.
>
> Lower latency of non-exclusive waiters (because not going back to
> sleep), but also lower latency of walking the wait queue (because
> fewer entries, hopefully, and also less contention due to the "not
> going back to sleep" noise)
>
>            Linus
>