Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49984-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:03:51 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: JonasZhou-oc <JonasZhou-oc@zhaoxin.com>
Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	CobeChen@zhaoxin.com, LouisQi@zhaoxin.com, JonasZhou@zhaoxin.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/address_space: move i_mmap_rwsem to mitigate a false
 sharing with i_mmap.
Message-ID: <Zb0EV8rTpfJVNAJA@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20240202093407.12536-1-JonasZhou-oc@zhaoxin.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240202093407.12536-1-JonasZhou-oc@zhaoxin.com>

On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 05:34:07PM +0800, JonasZhou-oc wrote:
> In the struct address_space, there is a 32-byte gap between i_mmap
> and i_mmap_rwsem. Due to the alignment of struct address_space
> variables to 8 bytes, in certain situations, i_mmap and
> i_mmap_rwsem may end up in the same CACHE line.
> 
> While running Unixbench/execl, we observe high false sharing issues
> when accessing i_mmap against i_mmap_rwsem. We move i_mmap_rwsem
> after i_private_list, ensuring a 64-byte gap between i_mmap and
> i_mmap_rwsem.

I'm confused.  i_mmap_rwsem protects i_mmap.  Usually you want the lock
and the thing it's protecting in the same cacheline.  Why is that not
the case here?