Thread (29 messages) flat view 29 messages, 6 authors, 2024-10-25

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.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help