Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Theodore Y . Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 1/2] mm: Add __GFP_NO_LOCKS flag
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:53:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200818135327.GF23602@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200818074344.GL28270@dhcp22.suse.cz>

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:43:44AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 17-08-20 15:28:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:28:49AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 17-08-20 00:56:55, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > 
> > [ . . . ]
> > 
> > > > wget ftp://vps418301.ovh.net/incoming/1000000_kmalloc_kfree_rcu_proc_percpu_pagelist_fractio_is_8.png
> > > 
> > > 1/8 of the memory in pcp lists is quite large and likely not something
> > > used very often.
> > > 
> > > Both these numbers just make me think that a dedicated pool of page
> > > pre-allocated for RCU specifically might be a better solution. I still
> > > haven't read through that branch of the email thread though so there
> > > might be some pretty convincing argments to not do that.
> > 
> > To avoid the problematic corner cases, we would need way more dedicated
> > memory than is reasonable, as in well over one hundred pages per CPU.
> > Sure, we could choose a smaller number, but then we are failing to defend
> > against flooding, even on systems that have more than enough free memory
> > to be able to do so.  It would be better to live within what is available,
> > taking the performance/robustness hit only if there isn't enough.
> 
> Thomas had a good point that it doesn't really make much sense to
> optimize for flooders because that just makes them more effective.

The point is not to make the flooders go faster, but rather for the
system to be robust in the face of flooders.  Robust as in harder for
a flooder to OOM the system.

And reducing the number of post-grace-period cache misses makes it
easier for the callback-invocation-time memory freeing to keep up with
the flooder, thus avoiding (or at least delaying) the OOM.

> > My current belief is that we need a combination of (1) either the
> > GFP_NOLOCK flag or Peter Zijlstra's patch and
> 
> I must have missed the patch?

If I am keeping track, this one:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200814215206.GL3982@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net/

							Thanx, Paul