From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2655C2D0F1 for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 03:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD055206DB for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 03:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="qQ7NU+um" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731651AbgDADZ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:25:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f195.google.com ([209.85.160.195]:36967 "EHLO mail-qt1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731589AbgDADZ6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:25:58 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f195.google.com with SMTP id z24so19288220qtu.4 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:25:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lFSYqvfFUF1ovFmHfTti7v5BOoCq3r1McUwFK2pG5RM=; b=qQ7NU+umHMNwA8WeCSpEzAz0Gu5MdxXUX6+CVuha9v7EDQa88dMLlniS/0F/FsHdDl y3yjMPhYDuajxnM6p54m0L+Qv6cvgEO76sYv69cGKusOR0qoihRASg8T531SA3XiX98o sJVR4alD6PsLT7ri8Aw6JodYLSvDr8Vqkf7EI= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=lFSYqvfFUF1ovFmHfTti7v5BOoCq3r1McUwFK2pG5RM=; b=Ptq36ZCkXsP1omhcfWZFI2hrpS86OLDhz4efxmZuV7781fbHm9Fda7W3hDHEy4urq2 PA3+IRNzXyq0YEvpr+Tu6Dd47x+X1BHKSmkOtUMbNW5Bns1iGw6toFwBiRN6xBVIPScD WnzPFA99LstQqZXI+Arp25yjd+a+xT1h/4amVt+lDAdfus9ufspS/3UJM39Fkewm2rS1 zTmw949buNUthOnnmuVcW5VNPfauUCI5SyJe54ss2a8YucTgJ8L4X9a7BvC/Vk5jZHV6 kKEZBwJr8THtRvsr5t8bmMRa/AVxgT+0OVn+DwSEFPL62+k/t90TVKMmpBXaUbYiWpPa SIuw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0Z6FX1N4pAUtJTjT6noE1RHtB+FsNe+B+BjHwZr/wi+GCgl1Hf CmJdeTaaPP3sSOHJ6sM6tf7bpQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtL2n03VIwQtnqW+IsY7DsD8p/H5OcQpXxMFlvAYLgwW2+c5WLD1AR6pXpDo7VO64CA/HRVzw== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4449:: with SMTP id m9mr8439493qtn.175.1585711556906; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:6:12:9c46:e0da:efbf:69cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i20sm605141qkl.135.2020.03.31.20.25.56 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 23:25:55 -0400 From: Joel Fernandes To: NeilBrown Cc: Michal Hocko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, peterz@infradead.org, neilb@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz, mgorman@suse.de, Andrew Morton , Josh Triplett , Lai Jiangshan , Mathieu Desnoyers , "Paul E. McKenney" , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] rcu/tree: Use GFP_MEMALLOC for alloc memory to free memory pattern Message-ID: <20200401032555.GA175966@google.com> References: <20200331131628.153118-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20200331145806.GB236678@google.com> <20200331153450.GM30449@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200331160117.GA170994@google.com> <877dz0yxoa.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877dz0yxoa.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:19:49AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31 2020, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 05:34:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >> On Tue 31-03-20 10:58:06, Joel Fernandes wrote: > >> [...] > >> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> > > index 4be763355c9fb..965deefffdd58 100644 > >> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > >> > > @@ -3149,7 +3149,7 @@ static inline struct rcu_head *attach_rcu_head_to_object(void *obj) > >> > > > >> > > if (!ptr) > >> > > ptr = kmalloc(sizeof(unsigned long *) + > >> > > - sizeof(struct rcu_head), GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN); > >> > > + sizeof(struct rcu_head), GFP_MEMALLOC); > >> > > >> > Just to add, the main requirements here are: > >> > 1. Allocation should be bounded in time. > >> > 2. Allocation should try hard (possibly tapping into reserves) > >> > 3. Sleeping is Ok but should not affect the time bound. > >> > >> > >> __GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_HIGH is the way to get an additional access to > >> memory reserves regarless of the sleeping status. > >> > >> Using __GFP_MEMALLOC is quite dangerous because it can deplete _all_ the > >> memory. What does prevent the above code path to do that? > > > > Can you suggest what prevents other users of GFP_MEMALLOC from doing that > > also? That's the whole point of having a reserve, in normal usage no one will > > use it, but some times you need to use it. Keep in mind this is not a common > > case in this code here, this is triggered only if earlier allocation attempts > > failed. Only *then* we try with GFP_MEMALLOC with promises to free additional > > memory soon. > > I think that "soon" is the key point. Users of __GFP_MEMALLOC certainly > must be working to free other memory, that other memory needs to be freed > "soon". In particular - sooner than all the reserve is exhausted. This > can require rate-limiting. If one allocation can result in one page > being freed, that is good and it is probably OK to have 1000 allocations > resulting in 1000 pages being freed soon. But 10 million allocation to > gain 10 million pages is not such a good thing and shouldn't be needed. > Once those first 1000 pages have been freed, you won't need > __GFP_MEMALLOC allocations any more, and you must be prepare to wait for > them. > > So where does the rate-limiting happen in your proposal? A GP can be > multiple milliseconds, which is time for lots of memory to be allocated > and for rcu-free queues to grow quite large. > > You mention a possible fall-back of calling synchronize_rcu(). I think > that needs to be a fallback that happens well before __GFP_MEMALLOC is > exhausted. You need to choose some maximum amount that you will > allocate, then use synchronize_rcu() (or probably the _expedited > version) after that. The pool of reserves are certainly there for you > to use, but not for you to exhaust. > > If you have your own rate-limiting, then I think __GFP_MEMALLOC is > probably OK, and also you *don't* want the memalloc to wait. If memory > cannot be allocated immediately, you need to use your own fallback. Thanks a lot for explaining in detail, the RFC patch has served its purpose well ;-) On discussing with RCU comrades, we agreed to not use GFP_MEMALLOC. But instead pre-allocate a cache (we do have a cache but it is not yet pre-allocated, just allocated on demand). About the rate limiting, we would fallback to synchronize_rcu() instead of sleeping in case of trobule. However I would like to add a warning if we ever hit the troublesome path mainly because that means we depleted the pre-allocated cache and perhaps the user should switch to adding an rcu_head in their structure to reduce latency. I'm adding that warning to my tree: diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 4be763355c9fb..6172e6296dd7d 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -110,6 +110,10 @@ module_param(rcu_fanout_exact, bool, 0444); static int rcu_fanout_leaf = RCU_FANOUT_LEAF; module_param(rcu_fanout_leaf, int, 0444); int rcu_num_lvls __read_mostly = RCU_NUM_LVLS; +/* Silence the kvfree_rcu() complaint (warning) that it blocks */ +int rcu_kfree_nowarn; +module_param(rcu_kfree_nowarn, int, 0444); + /* Number of rcu_nodes at specified level. */ int num_rcu_lvl[] = NUM_RCU_LVL_INIT; int rcu_num_nodes __read_mostly = NUM_RCU_NODES; /* Total # rcu_nodes in use. */ @@ -3266,6 +3270,12 @@ void kvfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func) * state. */ if (!success) { + /* + * Please embed an rcu_head and pass it along if you hit this + * warning. Doing so would avoid long kfree_rcu() latencies. + */ + if (!rcu_kfree_nowarn) + WARN_ON_ONCE(1); debug_rcu_head_unqueue(ptr); synchronize_rcu(); kvfree(ptr);