lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 0/6] Per-VMA lock support for swap and userfaults
On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 5:50 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 14:19:51 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
> > When per-VMA locks were introduced in [1] several types of page faults
> > would still fall back to mmap_lock to keep the patchset simple. Among them
> > are swap and userfault pages. The main reason for skipping those cases was
> > the fact that mmap_lock could be dropped while handling these faults and
> > that required additional logic to be implemented.
> > Implement the mechanism to allow per-VMA locks to be dropped for these
> > cases.
> > First, change handle_mm_fault to drop per-VMA locks when returning
> > VM_FAULT_RETRY or VM_FAULT_COMPLETED to be consistent with the way
> > mmap_lock is handled. Then change folio_lock_or_retry to accept vm_fault
> > and return vm_fault_t which simplifies later patches. Finally allow swap
> > and uffd page faults to be handled under per-VMA locks by dropping per-VMA
> > and retrying, the same way it's done under mmap_lock.
> > Naturally, once VMA lock is dropped that VMA should be assumed unstable
> > and can't be used.
>
> Is there any measurable performance benefit from this?

Good point. I haven't measured it but assume it will have the same
effect as for other page fault cases handled under per-VMA locks
(mmap_lock contention reduction). I'll try to create a test to measure
the effects.
Thanks,
Suren.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-07-03 17:28    [W:0.067 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site