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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-42-surenb@google.com>
 <Y8UxnqPCTLbbD+2F@localhost> <Y8YgomKF189vmgLz@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAJuCfpECJhUu3fvWbBzmAkEA3+1LTkKqJOVadQB_-_mEHME=xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8Y2JErbNQOhL8ee@casper.infradead.org> <CAJuCfpEx6FJpm0Js=cvcHw6mY3izPfoskxseSMyxFAxLX97X_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8bnpqw134CHenz/@casper.infradead.org> <CAJuCfpGKRLshk1oWf1Nz4jhDrMGnkWs7qtWYaj=j_iQwPq0THQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8cFt7GVLTOT5Cdl@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Y8cFt7GVLTOT5Cdl@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 13:00:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpHwmfauZihbexnSq9mEe3Yz0DxT=KwgBX7ATCr2QJp_pA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 41/41] mm: replace rw_semaphore with atomic_t in vma_lock
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        michel@lespinasse.org, jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net, dave@stgolabs.net,
        liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com,
        edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com,
        arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com,
        leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:31 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue 17-01-23 10:28:40, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> [...]
> > > Then yes, that's a starvable lock.  Preventing starvation on the mmap
> > > sem was the original motivation for making rwsems non-starvable, so
> > > changing that behaviour now seems like a bad idea.  For efficiency, I'd
> > > suggest that a waiting writer set the top bit of the counter.  That way,
> > > all new readers will back off without needing to check a second variable
> > > and old readers will know that they *may* need to do the wakeup when
> > > atomic_sub_return_release() is negative.
> > >
> > > (rwsem.c has a more complex bitfield, but I don't think we need to go
> > > that far; the important point is that the waiting writer indicates its
> > > presence in the count field so that readers can modify their behaviour)
> >
> > Got it. Ok, I think we can figure something out to check if there are
> > waiting write-lockers and prevent new readers from taking the lock.
>
> Reinventing locking primitives is a ticket to weird bugs. I would stick
> with the rwsem and deal with performance fallouts after it is clear that
> the core idea is generally acceptable and based on actual real life
> numbers. This whole thing is quite big enough that we do not have to go
> through "is this new synchronization primitive correct and behaving
> reasonably" exercise.

Point taken. That's one of the reasons I kept this patch separate.
I'll drop this last patch from the series for now. One correction
though, this will not be a performance fallout but memory consumption
fallout.

>
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs