Re: [PATCH v3 tip/perf/core 1/4] mm: introduce mmap_lock_speculation_{start|end}
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2024-10-23 20:10:42
Also in:
bpf, linux-mm, lkml
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 01:56:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> Add helper functions to speculatively perform operations without read-locking mmap_lock, expecting that mmap_lock will not be write-locked and mm is not modified from under us. Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20240912210222.186542-1-surenb@google.com (local) --- include/linux/mm_types.h | 3 ++ include/linux/mmap_lock.h | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- kernel/fork.c | 3 -- 3 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)diff --git a/include/linux/mm_types.h b/include/linux/mm_types.h index 6e3bdf8e38bc..5d8cdebd42bc 100644 --- a/include/linux/mm_types.h +++ b/include/linux/mm_types.h@@ -887,6 +887,9 @@ struct mm_struct { * Roughly speaking, incrementing the sequence number is * equivalent to releasing locks on VMAs; reading the sequence * number can be part of taking a read lock on a VMA. + * Incremented every time mmap_lock is write-locked/unlocked. + * Initialized to 0, therefore odd values indicate mmap_lock + * is write-locked and even values that it's released. * * Can be modified under write mmap_lock using RELEASE * semantics.diff --git a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h index de9dc20b01ba..9d23635bc701 100644 --- a/include/linux/mmap_lock.h +++ b/include/linux/mmap_lock.h@@ -71,39 +71,84 @@ static inline void mmap_assert_write_locked(const struct mm_struct *mm) } #ifdef CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK +static inline void init_mm_lock_seq(struct mm_struct *mm) +{ + mm->mm_lock_seq = 0; +} + /* - * Drop all currently-held per-VMA locks. - * This is called from the mmap_lock implementation directly before releasing - * a write-locked mmap_lock (or downgrading it to read-locked). - * This should normally NOT be called manually from other places. - * If you want to call this manually anyway, keep in mind that this will release - * *all* VMA write locks, including ones from further up the stack. + * Increment mm->mm_lock_seq when mmap_lock is write-locked (ACQUIRE semantics) + * or write-unlocked (RELEASE semantics). */ -static inline void vma_end_write_all(struct mm_struct *mm) +static inline void inc_mm_lock_seq(struct mm_struct *mm, bool acquire) { mmap_assert_write_locked(mm); /* * Nobody can concurrently modify mm->mm_lock_seq due to exclusive * mmap_lock being held. - * We need RELEASE semantics here to ensure that preceding stores into - * the VMA take effect before we unlock it with this store. - * Pairs with ACQUIRE semantics in vma_start_read(). */ - smp_store_release(&mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1); + + if (acquire) { + WRITE_ONCE(mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1); + /* + * For ACQUIRE semantics we should ensure no following stores are + * reordered to appear before the mm->mm_lock_seq modification. + */ + smp_wmb();
Strictly speaking this isn't ACQUIRE, nor do we care about ACQUIRE here. This really is about subsequent stores, loads are irrelevant.
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * We need RELEASE semantics here to ensure that preceding stores
+ * into the VMA take effect before we unlock it with this store.
+ * Pairs with ACQUIRE semantics in vma_start_read().
+ */Again, not strictly true. We don't care about loads. Using RELEASE here is fine and probably cheaper on a few platforms, but we don't strictly need/care about RELEASE.
+ smp_store_release(&mm->mm_lock_seq, mm->mm_lock_seq + 1); + } +}
Also, it might be saner to stick closer to the seqcount naming of
things and use two different functions for these two different things.
/* straight up copy of do_raw_write_seqcount_begin() */
static inline void mm_write_seqlock_begin(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
kcsan_nestable_atomic_begin();
mm->mm_lock_seq++;
smp_wmb();
}
/* straigjt up copy of do_raw_write_seqcount_end() */
static inline void mm_write_seqcount_end(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
smp_wmb();
mm->mm_lock_seq++;
kcsan_nestable_atomic_end();
}
Or better yet, just use seqcount...
+
+static inline bool mmap_lock_speculation_start(struct mm_struct *mm, int *seq)
+{
+ /* Pairs with RELEASE semantics in inc_mm_lock_seq(). */
+ *seq = smp_load_acquire(&mm->mm_lock_seq);
+ /* Allow speculation if mmap_lock is not write-locked */
+ return (*seq & 1) == 0;
+}
+
+static inline bool mmap_lock_speculation_end(struct mm_struct *mm, int seq)
+{
+ /* Pairs with ACQUIRE semantics in inc_mm_lock_seq(). */
+ smp_rmb();
+ return seq == READ_ONCE(mm->mm_lock_seq);
}Because there's nothing better than well known functions with a randomly different name and interface I suppose... Anyway, all the actual code proposed is not wrong. I'm just a bit annoyed its a random NIH of seqcount.