Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change

From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	sj38.park@gmail.com, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>,
	snu@amazon.com, amit@kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] Revert the 'socket_alloc' life cycle change
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 11:49:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200505184955.GO2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200505183402.2021-1-sjpark@amazon.com>

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:34:02PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> On Tue, 5 May 2020 11:17:07 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:56:05PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 10:30:36 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 07:05:53PM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:37:42 -0700 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:31 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 5/5/20 9:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On 5/5/20 9:13 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 09:00:44 -0700 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:47 AM SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 08:20:50 -0700 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On 5/5/20 8:07 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, 5 May 2020 07:53:39 -0700 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I would ask Paul opinion on this issue, because we have many objects
> > > > > > >> being freed after RCU grace periods.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If RCU subsystem can not keep-up, I guess other workloads will also suffer.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Sure, we can revert patches there and there trying to work around the issue,
> > > > > > >> but for objects allocated from process context, we should not have these problems.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I wonder if simply adjusting rcu_divisor to 6 or 5 would help 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > index d9a49cd6065a20936edbda1b334136ab597cde52..fde833bac0f9f81e8536211b4dad6e7575c1219a 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > > > > > > @@ -427,7 +427,7 @@ module_param(qovld, long, 0444);
> > > > > > >  static ulong jiffies_till_first_fqs = ULONG_MAX;
> > > > > > >  static ulong jiffies_till_next_fqs = ULONG_MAX;
> > > > > > >  static bool rcu_kick_kthreads;
> > > > > > > -static int rcu_divisor = 7;
> > > > > > > +static int rcu_divisor = 6;
> > > > > > >  module_param(rcu_divisor, int, 0644);
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  /* Force an exit from rcu_do_batch() after 3 milliseconds. */
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To be clear, you can adjust the value without building a new kernel.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > echo 6 >/sys/module/rcutree/parameters/rcu_divisor
> > > > > 
> > > > > I tried value 6, 5, and 4, but none of those removed the problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for checking this!
> > > > 
> > > > Was your earlier discussion on long RCU readers speculation, or do you
> > > > have measurements?
> > > 
> > > It was just a guess without any measurement or dedicated investigation.
> > 
> > OK, another thing to check is the duration of the low-memory episode.
> > Does this duration exceed the RCU CPU stall warning time?  (21 seconds
> > in mainline, 60 in many distros, but check rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_timeout
> > to be sure.)
> 
> The benchmark takes about 36 seconds for 10,000 repeats of the test.
> 
> The value on the test machine is 60.
> 
> So the duration would not exceeded the warning time and therefore I haven't
> seen the warning message.
> 
> As told in other mail, I will also adjust this value to shorter one.

Sounds good, thank you!

> > Also, any chance of a .config?  Or at least the RCU portions?  I am
> > guessing CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, for example.
> 
> I guess this would be ok.
> 
>     # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
>     
>     #
>     # RCU Subsystem
>     #
>     CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y
>     CONFIG_RCU_EXPERT=y
>     CONFIG_SRCU=y
>     CONFIG_TREE_SRCU=y
>     CONFIG_RCU_STALL_COMMON=y
>     CONFIG_RCU_NEED_SEGCBLIST=y
>     CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=64
>     CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=16
>     # CONFIG_RCU_FAST_NO_HZ is not set
>     CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU=y
>     # end of RCU Subsystem

And thank you again!

							Thanx, Paul