Received: by 2002:a05:6358:d09b:b0:dc:cd0c:909e with SMTP id jc27csp1563219rwb; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:15:24 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5O6vgnyZRyzUJpLvux40VF3pLV2AOc60/fX/fHJKiB8X87W9LtZq+Mz0pzJ2sbPX5XGqmw X-Received: by 2002:a50:eb46:0:b0:46a:6426:f458 with SMTP id z6-20020a50eb46000000b0046a6426f458mr59519177edp.119.1670530524388; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 12:15:24 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1670530524; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HwqYdSYp8dkffSOx0cSR8xOoqTcCqWKKkcl15yUwfkaisgydf1tgxt1KsV5DeAyVVv +19XB0RnQfkJnDLUx8sfEEpj5pqgIi2Ho9sgvSB2t7tH+1DnM5V1SL9Q9jjLRXLuqXjV z0ajc6pqNZ5dE0XSZm1SAOfNLwRNgTWqkaP2dPkZ7Hz+nUvVM5H0nfMLADJK8FX5YygA BqpUmyc0yf27dIyI3/MFAKURANLMNjxISvsfNX1YEjDz39t5NG+Y6no9mIoT6bo33zkw MK1ta6HZ/3vMUVx0pQOPIlrmt/1AzeJcGojPFsb8IayxcIjJ8aUO35t8U8eTEHbfF6sj y5hw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:date:from:dkim-signature; bh=Cbt5AP/opVLc7mMBSSuU1JbLyeELh40EDgvhnoHJP70=; b=LCJ2/i8N97RnTbfuQTaIPJgCAGIzY7IRQcqcJZDQ3CWPiOOzly+D1Wz7RRv7wWpALo ZnPM7lKYJDsnb3HR1/fwRfVOrXPkKF5U0fKIMQOeOyvu+ErdhMEjSmNami4YUmU3W0Nv s0rRaAacMHcVxGMCmJjvGWoHYvJtUHtnXyeMRwZLbBsdDXXQqsE7Fci9+Ga2GaAV3gEB BPi9f9/IST3tBsiLbvnwFG9+FlTpZeBqJ2pc1cCg7cS4uWwqfOA8hDKeWGCpFTSHGsZB 4M6560dcoASSBQ2EWs2NjHTZeUl2VwoG9DySt47Qcp6yKuE7+cpRMyFYmJugj/nQ8A4F bDHw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=fyYeafmB; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id di14-20020a170906730e00b007c11f2411e1si5678301ejc.815.2022.12.08.12.15.07; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 12:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=fyYeafmB; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229555AbiLHTw6 (ORCPT + 73 others); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:52:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40082 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbiLHTw4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:52:56 -0500 Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C7851329 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:52:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id bj12so6462085ejb.13 for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:52:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Cbt5AP/opVLc7mMBSSuU1JbLyeELh40EDgvhnoHJP70=; b=fyYeafmB6c2C0PZNOSzG2fMQws/DAdxSprCidbNS2n7zzH+51oGt5mYtwqlYLChtjL qVVXu91amMPeax6kKa92akWxT5LhsFZGvSX4Xz1PO8P+IDUvvDFABVjLIPeUNtwtFNzh F+MZcmx/zC4R5K4KpKUrI2RaY+NWyjbHDmL17PlzTCc6fK1OPn01iv2arCi+T0mQoRaF fqerH8kKZbr/8IXsfEx33JPsNzXs+LPbMKMNa+D7tKeXys58dqdX0w8dlky17dPeLbk0 iEFS4eS9sEYxp/yPVhFA7X0GiYIakCXNNrXdAFqA5QOZe4cNJ+7GoWTEXBJoak0BRn8B xB0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Cbt5AP/opVLc7mMBSSuU1JbLyeELh40EDgvhnoHJP70=; b=jEaA410nrsmzq7dkQUQ9vKcV+zMx7oLq0X7W/jIjpjkoACl9QPAKYM4dH8zxKp/jfx C0GOXT0cMtdeOvxMDSEYRL0fUvRB7IyBQYJcLcHPoy9VTGY2bYPV2REtVnzMmrIk8Zi6 ncILT6qs5gJ2YoZBSOWMXgpPsHr+oa03bBWBUe5f1UZfbkFfAKmsRGF0pnu3an8ERZ9J sEY7F6WZjLH5UcGZn/kuOEZNjcsQ/ryaxFdbjyYuDKswWHQC+Vt1W93kg00HjA897xey UcFzXCj++HkgxCou/68FzvVHlgRnUJYsydDE2uAm+8+uaoIt9stMnNu+Z7M2+ZTvUQXt scWg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnQveEcdJtxYEAO3eMQfqlJukA6SdpSmeZRhP/3+zSVHQIyFxap PnYSnMTp6LKQuqiQK2mbjk/FtggPJ4M= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:37d5:b0:7c0:a961:8aad with SMTP id o21-20020a17090637d500b007c0a9618aadmr3213884ejc.34.1670529172683; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:52:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc636 ([155.137.26.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o17-20020a170906769100b00782fbb7f5f7sm10009703ejm.113.2022.12.08.11.52.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:52:52 -0800 (PST) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 20:52:50 +0100 To: Baoquan He Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/7] mm/vmalloc.c: add flags to mark vm_map_ram area Message-ID: References: <20221204013046.154960-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20221204013046.154960-3-bhe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 07, 2022 at 04:03:41PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > On 12/05/22 at 01:56pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > Through vmalloc API, a virtual kernel area is reserved for physical > > > address mapping. And vmap_area is used to track them, while vm_struct > > > is allocated to associate with the vmap_area to store more information > > > and passed out. > > > > > > However, area reserved via vm_map_ram() is an exception. It doesn't have > > > vm_struct to associate with vmap_area. And we can't recognize the > > > vmap_area with '->vm == NULL' as a vm_map_ram() area because the normal > > > freeing path will set va->vm = NULL before unmapping, please see > > > function remove_vm_area(). > > > > > > Meanwhile, there are two types of vm_map_ram area. One is the whole > > > vmap_area being reserved and mapped at one time; the other is the > > > whole vmap_area with VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE size being reserved, while mapped > > > into split regions with smaller size several times via vb_alloc(). > > > > > > To mark the area reserved through vm_map_ram(), add flags field into > > > struct vmap_area. Bit 0 indicates whether it's a vm_map_ram area, > > > while bit 1 indicates whether it's a vmap_block type of vm_map_ram > > > area. > > > > > > This is a preparatoin for later use. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He > > > --- > > > include/linux/vmalloc.h | 1 + > > > mm/vmalloc.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/vmalloc.h b/include/linux/vmalloc.h > > > index 096d48aa3437..69250efa03d1 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/vmalloc.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/vmalloc.h > > > @@ -76,6 +76,7 @@ struct vmap_area { > > > unsigned long subtree_max_size; /* in "free" tree */ > > > struct vm_struct *vm; /* in "busy" tree */ > > > }; > > > + unsigned long flags; /* mark type of vm_map_ram area */ > > > }; > > > > > > /* archs that select HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_VMAP should override one or more of these */ > > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > index 5d3fd3e6fe09..d6f376060d83 100644 > > > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > > > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > > > @@ -1815,6 +1815,7 @@ static void free_vmap_area_noflush(struct vmap_area *va) > > > > > > spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > unlink_va(va, &vmap_area_root); > > > + va->flags = 0; > > > spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > This is not a good place to set flags to zero. It looks to me like > > corner and kind of specific. > > Thanks for reviewing. > > Here, I thought to clear VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK on vmap->flags when free > the vmap_block. I didn't find a good place to do the clearing. When we > call free_vmap_block(), we either come from purge_fragmented_blocks(), > or from vb_free(). In vb_free(), it will call free_vmap_block() when > the whole vmap_block is dirty. In purge_fragmented_blocks(), it will > try to purge all vmap_block which only has dirty or free regions. > For both of above functions, they will call free_vmap_block() when > there's no being used region in the vmap_block. > > purge_fragmented_blocks() > vb_free() > -->free_vmap_block() > > So seems we don't need to clear the VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK on vmap->flags > because there's no mapping existed in the vmap_block. The consequent > free_vmap_block() will remove the relevant vmap_area from vmap_area_list > and vmap_area_root tree. > > So I plan to remove code change in this place. > > > > > > > nr_lazy = atomic_long_add_return((va->va_end - va->va_start) >> > > > @@ -1887,6 +1888,10 @@ struct vmap_area *find_vmap_area(unsigned long addr) > > > > > > #define VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE (VMAP_BBMAP_BITS * PAGE_SIZE) > > > > > > +#define VMAP_RAM 0x1 > > > +#define VMAP_BLOCK 0x2 > > > +#define VMAP_FLAGS_MASK 0x3 > > > + > > > struct vmap_block_queue { > > > spinlock_t lock; > > > struct list_head free; > > > @@ -1967,6 +1972,9 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > kfree(vb); > > > return ERR_CAST(va); > > > } > > > + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > + va->flags = VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK; > > > + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > The per-cpu code was created as a fast per-cpu allocator because of high > > vmalloc lock contention. If possible we should avoid of locking of the > > vmap_area_lock. Because it has a high contention. > > Fair enough. I made below draft patch to address the concern. By > adding argument va_flags to alloc_vmap_area(), we can pass the > vm_map_ram flags into alloc_vmap_area and filled into vmap_area->flags. > With this, we don't need add extra action to acquire vmap_area_root lock > and do the flags setting. Is it OK to you? > > From 115f6080b339d0cf9dd20c5f6c0d3121f6b22274 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Baoquan He > Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2022 11:08:14 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: change alloc_vmap_area() to pass in va_flags > > With this change, we can pass and set vmap_area->flags for vm_map_ram area > in alloc_vmap_area(). Then no extra action need be added to acquire > vmap_area_lock when doing the vmap_area->flags setting. > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He > --- > mm/vmalloc.c | 13 +++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c > index ccaa461998f3..d74eddec352f 100644 > --- a/mm/vmalloc.c > +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c > @@ -1586,7 +1586,9 @@ preload_this_cpu_lock(spinlock_t *lock, gfp_t gfp_mask, int node) > static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, > unsigned long align, > unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend, > - int node, gfp_t gfp_mask) > + int node, gfp_t gfp_mask, > + unsigned long va_flags) > +) > { > struct vmap_area *va; > unsigned long freed; > @@ -1630,6 +1632,7 @@ static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size, > va->va_start = addr; > va->va_end = addr + size; > va->vm = NULL; > + va->flags = va_flags; > > spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > insert_vmap_area(va, &vmap_area_root, &vmap_area_list); > @@ -1961,7 +1964,8 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > va = alloc_vmap_area(VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, > VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > - node, gfp_mask); > + node, gfp_mask, > + VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK); > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > kfree(vb); > return ERR_CAST(va); > @@ -2258,7 +2262,8 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned int count, int node) > } else { > struct vmap_area *va; > va = alloc_vmap_area(size, PAGE_SIZE, > - VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, node, GFP_KERNEL); > + VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > + node, GFP_KERNEL, VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK); > if (IS_ERR(va)) > return NULL; > > @@ -2498,7 +2503,7 @@ static struct vm_struct *__get_vm_area_node(unsigned long size, > if (!(flags & VM_NO_GUARD)) > size += PAGE_SIZE; > > - va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask); > + va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask, 0); > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > kfree(area); > return NULL; > -- > 2.34.1 > Yes, this is better than it was before. Adding an extra parameter makes it more valid and logical. -- Uladzislau Rezki